Jack the Bodiless

Erm... Andrew's example was hypothetical. Therefore the naturalistic explanation is "it was hypothetical".

agapeo

[Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
Erm... Andrew's example was hypothetical. Therefore the naturalistic explanation is "it was hypothetical".]

Well, fine then. Give a "hypothetical naturalistic" explanation for his "hypothetical supernatural" example and then we can determine whose explanation is more reasonable to accept.

Jack the Bodiless

Let's see the original post again, with the relevant questions highlighted:
Ok, let's pull them out into a list:

A. Would all here concede this is evidence of a miracle?
B. Would that tend to be more in favor of a theistic worldview as opposed to an atheist/materialist worldview?
C. Would it be enough you could no longer call yourself an atheist?
D. If this would not be enough evidence of a supernatural event what would be?

(I've used letters to avoid confusion with the original numbered naturalistic proposals).

OK, here are my answers:

A. Yes, evidence of a supernatural event. But not proof, due to other possible explamations yet to be ruled out.

B. Yes, it would make some sort of theistic worldview slightly more likely. But, just as "unexplained" is not synonomous with "supernatural", likewise "supernatural" is not synonomous with "theistic".

C. Certainly not. There is no apparent connection with a deity.

D. Preferably something reproducible. If someone had a psychic power that performed consistently under test, I would consider that as evidence of what is commonly called "the supernatural". More precisely, however, I would redefine the demonstrated psychic power as "natural" and support further research into how it fits in with the rest of the "natural" Universe.

Wyrdsmyth

In your case, Agapeo, you might want to say "Well, welcome to the church of Wittgenstein."

Yes, it is. But if we are not unclear about what each other means by a certain word, then why keep discussing the meaning of that word? Why not move on to an assessment of the evidence itself? That is, if there is any.

Wyrdsmyth

They do have to support their theory with evidence, if they want anyone to believe it, yes. If someone comes up with a scientific theory, it's up to them to try to show what is persuasive about it -- how it best fits the evidence that is available.

Evolution is a theory which is very old. The first case I know of someone espousing this theory was Anaximander in 6th century Miletus, a Greek City in what is today Turkey. Anaximander held that living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun, and man, like every other animal was descended from fishes. When he first came up with this theory, he was just throwing around wild ideas, and probably didn't have any good evidence to get people to seriously consider it.

In more modern times, the theory of evolution gathered acceptence as it gathered evidence. Darwin didn't invent the idea. But with modern advances in science, there was not only more evidence for evolution in Darwin's time, but also (equally important, I think) more receptivity to the idea. Why? Because science was making advances in many fields, and having success explaining the world without making appeal to gods, spirits or the supernatural. The study of fossils and biology has re-inforced rather than falsified the theory of evolution. As a theory it can never be proven as "absolute truth," but it is considered by many to now be factual, and is therefore accepted. That doesn't mean there still aren't gaps or areas about which biologists are ignorant about; there are. The question you probably want to raise is whether any of these gaps or areas of ignorance is problematic enough to overthrow the entire theory, to effectively falsify it.

That would be a debate for biologists, and there are philosophers of science who may want to tackle that.

But I agree with you on one thing -- you are justified to "lack a belief" in evolution if you find it does not have enough evidence, or if it is too problematic or inconsistent in some way. And it is not up to you to defend your lack of belief. It is perfectly reasonable to say "I don't know exactly how life came to arrive at it's present state... there seem to be some problems with current evolutionary theories, so I think I'm going to have to stick with 'I don't know' for now." There's nothing wrong with that. Saying "I don't know" or "I'm not so sure about that," or "I don't completely buy into it yet," are all valid things to say. But there is something wrong with ruling out evolution a priori, even as a possibility, because you think it contradicts your religious beliefs. Then you're not assessing the theory of evolution on its own merits.

Evolution, like theism, is a positive claim. And they both need evidence to support them.

Your position of "a-evolution," like atheism, is not a positive claim. They do not need evidence to support them, as they refer to a lack of belief in a particular theory and doctrine, respectively.

Don't try to equate evolution with atheism. They are not the same. One is a positive claim, a theory about how the world works, a model that tries to best explain the pieces of the evidence that are at hand. The other is merely a lack of belief.

By comparison, it would be wrong for me to equate a-evolution with theism. There are indeed theists out there who do think evolution is a valid theory and is factual. Some have merged their theism with evolution with little or no problem.

Don't try to oversimplify things, by lumping such terms as atheism, evolution, materialism, naturalism, etc. all in the same pile, and saying that is all opposed to theism, creationism, immaterialism, supernaturalism, etc. It's not like there are just two sides. There can be atheists who find evolution problematic -- just because they see problems with current theory, though, it doesn't mean they then must believe in a god, by default -- they can just say "I don't know exactly how all this works." I know someone who believes in the supernatural (like ghosts) but doesn't believe in God. I also know theists who believe in God and think anyone who doubts evolution must be a complete knucklehead. I've known people who were dualists -- who divide the world into two realms of abstract and physical -- yet don't believe in God. And, I've known materialists who believe in God, albeit a Parmenidean, "all-is-one" sort of pantheism.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Andrew_theist

Some responses...

If there was no evidence for the Holocaust, then Holocaust-denial would be an entirely reasonable position. If I publish an article denying that the Americans butchered millions of British civilians during WW2, I do not carry the burden of proof. This is a negative claim that does not have to be defended. Hence the importance of EVIDENCE for the positive claim: that the Americans did indeed kill millions of British civilians.

This is simply an amazing statement. My guess is you made it without thinking about what it meant. You are right; if there were no evidence for the Holocaust then denial would be reasonable. Just the same if there were no evidence for God then denial of God would be reasonable. Who is responsible to show there is no evidence for God? Theists? I am certainly willing to concede that theists are responsible for providing evidence for God. Atheists are responsible for providing evidence of their counter claim that no evidence of God exists or they have some equal or superior explanation.

What followed was a series of definitions for atheism which you'd already posted previously. The irony here is it seems like you're trying to brainwash us with repetition. Andrew, maybe if you re-post those same definitions over and over again, we will accept them... Is that your line of thinking? Is that your entire argument?

No I think I am far too late to attempt brainwashing. The over all theme of my post here and the other thread has been the same. That atheist’s employ a lot of creative intelligence and rationalizing to embrace their point of view. A belief or disbelief in a creator is certainly elective. No one is under any obligation to think there is a divine creator of the universe. I am certain there hundreds of thousands who are skeptical or ‘lack belief’ in the claims of theism. At times many theists lack belief in their own claims. So by defining atheism as a lack of belief you can include theists into your group! The Apostle Thomas at one point must have been an atheist by that reckoning.

Andrew, with all due respect it has by now been pointed out to you several times that dictionaries describe usage, they do not PRESCRIBE usage. By now, we all know that your position of argument in asserting such definitions is an attempt to establish that atheism is not a "lack of belief" but a "worldview" with its own positive claims that need evidence in order to be defended.

My premise is rejected precisely for the same reason evidence for theism is rejected. If a word, thought or reason doesn’t line up how you want it, you re-invent it to suit yourself through the use of creative imagination or just good old spin doctoring. I don’t need to establish that atheism is a worldview. This website provides more than ample proof to the truth of that statement. You have your own sub culture with special meanings attached to words. You have icons, your own sense of humor, you have leading questions you ask as a sorting mechanism to determine friend or foe and an agenda for social and governmental action. You even have an evangelical branch to promote your ‘non-worldview'. *

How can a mere lack of belief be a basis for social or governmental action? Because the concept of a lack of belief is really nothing more than a ploy used when a theist confronts and atheist. The rest of this site is devoted to promoting the worldview of naturalism, materialism, secular humanism and evolution and that these should be used as a basis for decision making in society.

But this kind of arguing is coming up against a serious road-block, because your argument can't go anywhere if no one accepts your premise. You can get red in the face and emit steam from your ears and repeat your assertions over and over, but that isn't going to impress anyone overly much.

Your right my argument can’t go anywhere as long as the so-called objective freethinkers continue to allow their thinking to be done for them. No it won’t impress anyone but one can only hope there is a few who have not been completely indoctrinated.

Let's try another approach, though. Let us try to look at this in another way. We want to understand each other's points of view, correct? Do you want to understand us, or just try to shove a premise down our throats, ignoring our objections? You say that we are being fundamental, in our rejection of what you're saying... but that is your response no matter what we say. Ask yourself this: Are you even listening to us anymore? Do you want to understand us, or just keep telling us what we believe?

I am watching and listening all too closely. And I think I understand the dynamics of a sub-culture. Your objections amount to asserting a right to interpret atheism any way you see fit. How can a dialog or meeting of minds occur if the very medium we are using to convey thoughts is subject to special interpretation? Moreover the con side of the argument wants ownership over the rules of engagement. Whenever people have a disagreement over an issue you normally look at the pros and cons of an issue. Both sides normally defend their own point of view. If you look at the debates on this very website (at least the ones I have seen so far) none of the atheists attempt to define their thought as a lack of belief. This is exactly why if you look at those debates they always are very close and sometimes the theist wins the debate. That can never happen in this format. As long as you maintain that the pro side has to prove its point and the con side need only offer objections a fair meaningful dialog will never occur.


The following are links on this website.
*
Making a Difference (Or: Becoming an Activist For Your Cause) by Stuart Bechman
Going Public: Taking Atheism to Society At-Large [ Index ] by Eddie Tabash.
Church/State Separation Issues in the Federal Government
National Atheist Ombuds project

· CART
The Coalition for the Advancement of Rational Thinking (CART), is is a coalition of organizations that promote a rational, non-theistic perspective on human society. It works to offer secular and objective solutions to human problems that are grounded in reality, and are the product of carefully reasoned thought. CART recognize that many problems are complex, requiring sophisticated problem-solving skills in order to obtain meaningful, efficacious, and appropriate solutions. It feels that the rational, non-theistic perspective is conducive to such requirements since it holds human reason and critical thinking as essential principles of conducting human affairs. CART conducts information campaigns by using press releases and public forums to present a rational perspective on current issues.
A Defense of Naturalism
Enterprising Science Needs Naturalism

theophilus

This raises an important issue and that it, what is the nature of the discussion here? Is it merely two groups of people with some saying "I believe in God," and the other saying "I don't believe in God."
No, it is two groups of people, both making positive assertions (God exists v No he doesn't) and, therefore, both bear the burden of proof to sustain their argument.
In the example above, to merely assert that there was no hollocaust in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, is not meaningful argumentation. Neither is it enough to discredit the interpretation of the evidence. It would require convincing evidence that it didn't happen.
There is also an important distinction between evidence and proof. Evidence is merely the citing of phenomena in support of a position. Proof is when the evidence becomes compelling and excludes all other meaningful conclusions.
I believe in UFOs because the evidence is overwhelming. I do not believe that UFOs are alien spacecraft because there is no proof that such is the case (besides, if we knew they were alien craft, they would not be "unidentified," would they.)

Koyaanisqatsi

Provide evidence for supernature.

Any thing else is irrelevant.

missus_gumby

Heck, there's a queue! He hasn't provided evidence for this:

...yet.

Martin

Jack the Bodiless

Andrew:
So now we're getting somewhere. What's the difference between the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews and the American Holocaust against the British? EVIDENCE. One has it,the other does not.

Why is this "amazing"?
Please explain how we can possibly provide "evidence that no evidence of God exists", other than doing exactly what we HAVE been doing: asking for the evidence. Just how much longer will you continue to ignore Koyaanisqatsi's request?

Provide evidence for supernature.

All else is irrelevant.