Why neither unicorns nor God are to be believed in

Once again, I'm sharing a marvelous comment from "Appreciative Reader" on a recent post of mine.

I especially liked the Shadowfax part near the end. Shadowfax is an invisible unicorn impervious to detection by all means, yet lives in Appreciative Reader's spare garage.

Or at least, this is what Appreciative Reader claims. 

Should other people assign Shadowfax a 50-50 probability of actually existing? Of course not. They should consider that perhaps one day there will be evidence of Shadowfax, since anything is possible.

But until that day arrives, there's no reason to believe in this invisible unicorn. Just as there's no reason to believe in God, since there's exactly as much demonstrable evidence of God's existence as there is of Shadowfax's existence.

The difference between them, of course, is that billions of people believe in God, while only Appreciative Reader believes in Shadowfax -- and only to make a point about the scientific approach to understanding reality.

Here's the comment.

"Can we agree that personal choices, personal logic may be our best effort to be scientific, but do not actually constitute actual objective science?"

.......Sure, Spence. But with the qualification that that personal choice isn't a free-for-all, but follows the broad guidelines of what I'd referred to as a scientific worldview.

That is, to describe that worldview as an agglomeration of essentially personal choices is to add precision to what I'd earlier on termed "scientific worldview", but is not to actually change what that actually amounts to.

In other words, to state that this is a personal worldview, is not to let open the floodgates to accepting whatever some individual person happens to find likely or reasonable, not unless they can rationally defend it with reference to the scientific method and per the terms we've already discussed.

With those qualifications, sure, absolutely, agreed to that much.

But I was hoping for broader agreement than just that much. Let me have one more go at trying to arrive at it.

Following on what I'd just said, in my comment above, Spence, let me quote, and comment on, what you'd said in your previous post:

"... to claim science hasn't proved God exists and therefore God doesn't exist is a false statement."

To recognize that science hasn't proved God exists, and therefore, for all practical purposes, to hold that God doesn't exist, is the rational worldview that is in keeping with a scientific outlook.

Happy now, with that rephrasing? And taken in conjunction with my last two comments addressed to you, do you, finally, agree with my larger point?

For perspective, let me introduce you to Shadowfax.

There is, beyond my front garden, a spare garage that now is a store (a dump, more like) for sundry gardening equipment and supplies.

I claim that that garage houses a unicorn. A real unicorn. His name is Shadowfax.

Except he is invisible, and impervious to detection by all means, all technology, that are thus far known to man. Might some means be invented to detect Shadowfax in future? One day, maybe, why not? But not so far.

So what are you to make of this unicorn? Your science has no means to return a clear resounding “No” when asked if this unicorn exists. And of course, a “Yes” answer is out of the question too.

So then will you spend your days honestly believing that perhaps in Appreciative Reader’s garden there lives a unicorn, maybe yes, maybe no, with more or less equal probability of either?

That’s patently ridiculous, that approach.

If in the years to come science does come up with some means to show you that that unicorn is in fact real, then you will certainly start believing in it. But until then, it makes sense to simply reject the claim of the existence of that unicorn.

That, in brief, is what soft atheism is all about. That is the sane approach to arriving at a scientific worldview.

Otherwise you’ll spend your days half-sure and half-unsure about the existence of Olympus and the gaggle of gods and half-gods of ancient Greece, and of Shangri-La and Tibetan mystics with what are effectively superpowers, and of the literal rendering of all the tall tales in the Bible, and of the Hindu pantheon, and the (Vajrayana) Buddhist deities, and the Yeti and the bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster, the world as simulation, the world as projection of a brain in a vat, in fact any and every fanciful concoction of man’s fertile brain that hasn’t explicitly and directly been ruled out by science so far (and indeed even such things as science has actually rejected, because after all such rejection is tentative and may yet, in future, be reversed, given adequate evidence).

Shh, quiet now. Yes, Shadowfax? Oh, ok, I'll ask him.

Spence, Shadowfax instructs me to ask you if his refulgent being has impressed you with the splendor and the simplicity that is the scientific worldview.

(Which is the short form for "the personal worldview that is appropriate for the individual, arrived at basis regard for the scientific method as *the* most efficacious means devised thus far for arriving at the truth".)

What should I tell him?

Comments

[271 days left]

“To recognize that science hasn't proved God exists, and therefore, for all practical purposes, to hold that God doesn't exist, is the rational worldview that is in keeping with a scientific outlook.”

1. First of all science deals with objective observations. Consciousness is invisible. Therefore science has nothing whatever to say about consciousness now or ever.

2.Scientism has a lot to say about it. Scientism is pseudo-science that thinks it can venture into philosophy. It can’t.
3. Please define God.
4. Please define consciousness.
5. Please define what you mean by “you.” That is "what are you?" Are you a person? Are you consciousness? Are you a human?
6. Unless we clearly define our terms, the rest is meaningless.

[umami]

I liked AR's spoof of industry founded on miracles:

"sons of God running distilleries where manufacturing is based on simply touching water and nothing else, and prophets running transportation agencies by parting the seas instead of running fleets of ships "

There's a skit in a film. Kentucky Fried Movie, I think. Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," so a corporation runs with it, pouring tens of millions into developing camels small enough or needles big enough.

[um]

>>“To recognize that science hasn't proved God exists, and therefore, for all practical purposes, to hold that God doesn't exist, is the rational worldview that is in keeping with a scientific outlook.”<<

within that and only that given field of human activity it is a correct statement.

If i miss something that is a "sine qua none" for making something ... say coffee ... than that making is impossible and all other things at hand are meaningless.

But maybe there is more to life than drinking coffee ... god knows ...

[Appreciative Reader]

“Once again, I'm sharing a marvelous comment from "Appreciative Reader" on a recent post of mine.
I especially liked the Shadowfax part near the end. (…)”

-------

Thank you, Brian, once again, for you kind words.

I had gone ahead and presented my example to Spence directly and without footnotes, but now that you’ve gone and made a whole separate post primarily around my friend Shadowfax, I think it’s time now that I clearly attribute this to the authors who originally came up with the ideas that inspired that creation.

The broad idea of the garage unicorn is from Carl Sagan’s garage dragon thought experiment. He came up with the thought experiment to demonstrate the principle of soft atheism. Of course, Carl Sagan was focused more on the shape-shifting nature of many God-ideas, that keep changing details as a growing base of scientific knowledge makes the gaps of ignorance smaller and smaller, within which such God-ideas might hide. Which can be put down either to plain disingenuousness, or else it could be, to cognitive dissonance and the inadvertent shape-shifting of one’s idea of one’s deity in order to cope with such. (The constant revisions of the nature of God by RCC apologists, and indeed by the Vatican itself, into subtler and subtler forms, apparently without intentional irony, would be the prime example of such; but of course, by no means is that the only such example.) In any case, that particular aspect wasn’t a feature of Spence’s argument, so I simplified my unicorn down by eliminating that aspect altogether.

As for “Shadowfax”, absolutely, that’s a brilliant name. But the actual brilliance is not mine at all but Tolkien’s. Shadowfax is the name of Gandalf’s horse, except, as all Tolkien aficionados will immediately protest, the word “horse” does not begin to properly describe the noble steed descended from Nahar and Felarof, from before the rise of man in Middle Earth. Given the etymology of his name --- Tolkien was linguist par excellence --- and the ideas thrown up by that etymology, of flowing mane, of color changing from glowing white by day to camouflage black by night, of nobility, and above all of supernatural origin and quality, the name “Shadowfax” kind of immediately sprang to my mind as my fingers typed out the idea of the garage unicorn.

So, absolutely, I agree, this was a brilliant construct with which to effectively convey the idea and the argument, but that brilliance is Carl Sagan’s, and Tolkien’s, and I was no more than the conduit.

[271 days left]

@Um
Yes, we agree.
One could say for example, audio equipment is what I trust. If my audio equipment cannot find the moon, then the rational conclusion is to believe no moon exists.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, Spence.

Although you’d posted your response in the other thread, but I’m replying to you here instead, given that Brian’s put up a separate post and thread around my specific comment that you’d responded to.

-------

“I see that we are making the same points repeatedly …
We can leave it at that.”

……………..You’re right, we do seem to have ended up kind of repeating essentially the same arguments at this point. Might be best to simply agree to disagree at this time, and, as you say, leave it at that. No doubt we will revisit this argument at some other time, perhaps with some fresh perspective and argument that might bring us closer to agreement.

(And which is why from your last two long comments addressed to me, that I’ve read and appreciated, all I quote here is that small portion up there.)

I enjoyed this discussion, Spence. While I continue to disagree with your core argument, and continue to find your core position fallacious, nevertheless the acuity of your arguments compelled me to closely re-examine my own position, which is always a good thing. Thanks for taking the time and effort.

-------

No further long-drawn series of arguments per se, but I’d like to put in two things in what might well be my last post in this discussion. The first would be one final observation, to which I’ll look forward to reading your response, but without any further comment from me (so as to not go down another endless round of back-and-forth argumentation that, as you rightly observe, might have come close to the point where it’s best to put it to rest for now). And the second would be some questions to you so as to clearly understand your position (and, obviously, you’re entirely free to not answer any of these questions, or indeed all these questions, that you feel might be too personal or intimate to share over a public forum).

-------

The observation first. I’ve already made this point, but you hadn’t addressed it, maybe you hadn’t noticed it. I’d like to emphasize that point one more time here. What I’d said earlier was that to not accept a claim is functionally no different than rejecting the claim. (So that, for instance, there is no difference between a “Not guilty” verdict, that courts do pronounce, and an “Innocent” verdict, that courts don’t --- as Osho Robbins had so correctly pointed out in the thread on soft atheism vs hard atheism.)

Another way to state that same thing is to point out --- and again, I’ve already done that, but I’ll repeat myself in order to emphasize the point --- that the difference between soft atheism and hard atheism is real enough, but that difference is one of methodology; functionally there is no difference between the two positions.

Do you actually believe in the existence of Shadowfax? Don’t give me an abstract answer. Don’t sidestep the question by saying, as you’ve done, “I don’t need to arrive at a conclusion on everything.” (You can go back and check the details of the unicorn, but his salient feature is the fact that he is impervious to detection by any means available to us at this time, so that coming to my garden and carrying out scientific tests is entirely moot.) And don’t sabotage the thought experiment by pointing out, as you did (and of course, what you say is true enough), that this a claim that is a priori false.

Should someone make a claim of this nature, and assuming for whatever reason you’ve brought your thoughts to bear on the subject, then, given what things are now, would you accept the claim of the existence of Shadowfax? Why, or why not?

I’m suggesting that you’re effectively fixating on the difference between “I do not accept this claim” and “I reject this claim”. I’m suggesting there is in fact no FUNCTIONAL difference between the two. And I’m suggesting that realizing this, and thinking through the implications of this, might get you, at long last, to fall in with my position.

Like I said, while I’ll look forward to your response, but I don’t propose to go into another round of response to your response, u.s.w., after that.

-------

So, some questions, that is, request for clarifications, about your actual position, that we’ve been arguing over for so long. (Again, please feel free, obviously, to not address any questions, or indeed all of them, that you might find too personal to share over a public forum; and again, while I’ll look forward to your responses, I don’t propose to go into further rounds of responses to your response, u.s.w., after this.)

(1) Do you in fact agree with my position, in terms of what kind of worldview is reasonable, but are only arguing that while the position itself is reasonable, it isn’t, in your view, correct to call it a scientific worldview? Or is it that you disagree with my position itself?

(And when I say you “disagree with my position”, I mean, do you hold a different position yourself? That we’re all free to hold any position we like, and no one has any right to disagree with any other person’s personal position or opinion, that we’ll take as understood.)

(2) How would you describe yourself as: Theist, or Atheist, or Agnostic? (Please don’t sidestep the question by claiming that you don’t like pigeonholing people into stereotypes, all that.)

(3) You’ve said to me that you believe your Experiences, capital E, probably derive from perturbations within your brain-nervous-system complex, and that that’s as far as willing to go with hypothesizing, at this time. On reflection, do you stand by that position?

(4) Following from #3 above: RSSB teaches the whole supernatural cosmology with Regions, all that, and the whole GIHF thing, and, you know, that whole RSSB deal. Question: Do you think it is valid for them to teach this?

In other words: Do you think it is even possible for them to conclusively …well, conclude --- not just speculate, not just tentatively hypothesize, but to actually come to a conclusion --- that that whole cosmology thing they teach is the explanation for the inner experience of RSSB initiates and masters? If yes, then how might they possibly have arrived at such a (valid) conclusion? If no, then do you think it is right of them to “teach” such to thousands, maybe millions, of trusting followers?

(Again, please don’t sidestep this by saying, “I’ve never thought about this.” If you honestly haven’t thought about this, then please do that now, and then post what your position is on this.)

(5) Finally, you’ve said in the past that you believe in honoring others’ beliefs. (And I too share that basic attitude with you, in general that is.) My question is, when it comes to belief systems that are actually toxic, like for instance the ISIS brand of militant Islam, then would you be just as accommodative? If yes, then fine, that’s that, no matter the less than happy implications. But if not, then why not?

-------

No doubt you see why I’m asking these questions, and how they tie in with our discussion. Like I said, at this time all I’m asking is for your own responses, and that is the end of it. No more counter-argument, or any further argument at all, from me, after this. For now.

[um]

@ 271 days

Are there things that cannot rational be understood?
If so how do rationalist deals with these things.
Can you give some personal examples?

Or ... you do not love a person, because love cannot rational be explained

Is that how rationalist live ... to ban themselves from all irrational facts of live?

[271 days left]

@Um,

@um,
Yes those are good questions.
Actually, the belief in God is the only rational belief. Why? Because we exist. It is not possible for the Universe (or us) to have created ourselves. So something had to have always been there.

God is by definition (whatever God is) what was always there. (Something had to be always there). Why? Because nothing is capable of creating itself. If it did create itself, then it was in fact there, to begin with. You can’t have a "before the beginning" without it being eternal.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative
My point, which I think the conversation has veered away from, is the false argument by Authority.

The argument that we see here that "there is no scientific evidence therefore I reject he claim on scientific grounds is false."

What science hasn't tested can't be described in scientific terms.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't make your own personal decisions.

That is most certainly valid. And you can argue the logic of your choice.

However, the absence of information on a subject is hardly the basis of a good conclusion.

Ignorance is not the basis of a sound decision.

[Spence Tepper]

Let me put this another way.
The absence of knowledge about God and the absence of scientific data about God is a state of relative ignorance about God.

Decisions about God should be based on Knowledge, and science, of at all possible.

[Spence Tepper]

History has shown that ignorance of a subject has resulted in many poor judgments about that subject. As science explored further, these ignorant notions were dispelled by facts.

That was the basis for my earlier remarks about racism and sexism. These attitudes arose from cultural beliefs, not science. But being ignorant they excused these prejudices on the claimed basis of science : "There is no scientific evidence therefore it doesn't exist."

This is ignorance defending decisions made in the absence of science and experience.

What science hasn't tested it can say nothing about.

Therefore conclusions about anything not based on scientific investigation, cannot be claimed to be based on science.

Ignorance is understandable. We are all ignorant about many things. But judgments made in ignorance are going to be less accurate.

Instead of drawing conclusions about things wet know little of, why not investigate them with an open mind?

And avoid making claims of scientific authority that are false.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You asked
"Should someone make a claim of this nature, and assuming for whatever reason you’ve brought your thoughts to bear on the subject, then, given what things are now, would you accept the claim of the existence of Shadowfax? Why, or why not?"

Third alternative.' I don't know.'
'I can't say..'
'I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion.'

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You asked
"(4) Following from #3 above: RSSB teaches the whole supernatural cosmology with Regions, all that, and the whole GIHF thing, and, you know, that whole RSSB deal. Question: Do you think it is valid for them to teach this?"

If anyone is simply sharing their own reliable experience, in any cultural terms they like, I think it's a good thing.

The head of a company may have the title Chief Executive, President, Founding Partner, etc... But if they are at the top, any label will work.

Now, as to the theory of Karma, if I saw that how could I comment on it?

If someone else describes it and I see it for myself, all I can say is that as far as my experience is concerned it corroborates. But I'm just one point of information. So while I can confirm that I've seen evidence that convinces me, it isn't transferable. Each person will need to decide for themselves what to believe or not believe. And they should decide on the basis of knowledge, hard won if necessary, not belief and certainly not ignorance.

I wouldn't presume to tell anyone they they were wrong about matters I have limited knowledge about, would you?

You asked about my beliefs. I believe in God, a living, Benevolent God intimately connected to every living thing, a passionate lover anxious for our return home, a generous Father in love with his children. And I believe Christ walks the earth in every age.

You asked about a terrorist organization. I can't comment about any organization. But individual acts that are harmful are wrong, I believe. I also believe they are caused by ignorance.

We all have access to an infinite and lasting wealth within. So there is no need for conflict of any kind at any time, if only we knew.

[Spence Tepper]

To illustrate this last point.
I have been for some time a huge fan of modern architecture. I loved big windows overlooking the ocean, rolling hills and large plains.

But since reaching a point where I can visit a huge cathedral of light within, and cross the stars, I'm happy anywhere, even a closet can be a place for me to see an incredible Vista of stars, in my new home, an amazing jewel laden cathedral.

So now the view of my physical location is meaningless. These things, outer physical things aren't worth it. They are nice, but take attention from my true wealth. Give me a nice closet.

[Appreciative Reader]

Spence, I did say I won't take this forward, but I'm afraid I couldn't resist!

-----------------

"What science hasn't tested can't be described in scientific terms."

.................Firstly, "God" has indeed been tested, many many times, tested and found wanting. Every time science has effectively tested God and found Him wanting (more precisely, found him AWOL), his apologists have immediately redefined him as something subtler. More tests defined, yet more subtlety brought in. When science showed us where thunder comes from, Thor was relegated to myth. When a literal reading of the Bible became impossible to defend bar to the most ignorant, suddenly the Bible became a metaphorical account. Shadowfax's forebear, Carl Sagan's original garden dragon, does a great job of exposing the fallacy of making allowances for this kind of a shape-shifting God. God has, in fact, been tested, and found wanting. The only way you can claim that God hasn't been tested, is by playing with goalposts that are shifted faster than the players can run!

And secondly, you (continue to) conflate the scientific method with a scientific worldview. A scientific worldview rejects (recall the functional equivalence of 'not accepting' and 'rejecting') such conclusions as are not scientifically defensible. And note, in this context, that "science" will not entail necessarily putting on lab coats and conducting double blind tests. That is, "science", in an everyday context, isn't necessarily the formal full-on beast you imply it has to be. It isn't all or none. My rejection of Shadowfax's existence is entirely scientific, given that no hypothesis can be fashioned at all that might put it to the test. (And thus, incidentally, with Osho Robbins's Oneness.)

-----------------

"Third alternative.' I don't know.'
'I can't say..'
'I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion.'"

.................Huh. Okay, fair enough, if you say that is honestly your view, I'll believe you. If you honestly claim that you will actually return a "I don't know" answer to whether Shadowfax exists, not just because you don't care to give the issue thought but because despite having given it thought that is what your personal philosophy guides you to answer, well then, while I find that extremely and implausibly weird, nevertheless I'll believe you.

You do realize, though, that that also implies that you will reply an honestly "I don't know" answer --- meaning you're saying you subjectively put as roughly 50-50 the probability of such existing vis-a-vis such not existing --- for all sorts of things, like the existence of the Loch Ness monster and the yeti and Bigfoot, and the universe-as-simulation hypothesis, and the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis, and, hell, whether the world is literally a rendition of Asimov's End of Eternity (which is fictitious, but which seamlessly fits in with our real world in terms of consistency, if only you wouldn't insist on evidence).

You insist, then, that you honestly treat as equi-probable, the existence or non-existence of all of these things? Fair enough, then. That is, I find that exceedingly odd, but you do have the right, after all, to your own opinions.

In effect, what you're doing is doing away with the burden of proof, and/or you're looking for a spurious distinction between "I don't accept this claim" and "I reject this claim", which two positions are functionally identical (even as they differ in methodological terms).

-----------------

My apologies: despite saying I wouldn't respond, I couldn't resist. I'll refrain from doing that again, else we'll keep on doing this back-and-forth endlessly and, as you rightly noted in your comment yesterday, keep repeating ourselves, as I find I've done in this comment as well.

Please go ahead and respond to the rest of my original comment, that you'd started responding to, and perhaps this comment as well. Nothing more from me after this.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR:

.................Firstly, "God" has indeed been tested, many many times, tested and found wanting. Every time science has effectively tested God and found Him wanting (more precisely, found him AWOL), his apologists have immediately redefined him as something subtler.

To test for God you would need a hypothesis that all agree to, and not only that, one that is actually connected to a Theory about who and what God is.

Further, you would need a test that gives you experimental control over the variables.

Claiming you have scientific results is a tall order. I hope you are ready to back up such a claim.

Now, you have made a claim, that God has been tested scientifically, to the rigorous standards of today's science, the standards by which we define Science today (not the medieval science of the past or the more current fake news science)

I challenge you to provide evidence of your claim.

If the scientific findings are there, and they aren't scientism, but true science, I will concede that God has been disproven by science.

If the findings aren't there, or are not actual science, then I hope you will establish your integrity by acknowledging this fact.

Keep in mind, the only basis for true objectivity, and science, is to have a claim that can be proven or disproven.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote:
"You do realize, though, that that also implies that you will reply an honestly "I don't know" answer --- meaning you're saying you subjectively put as roughly 50-50 the probability of such existing vis-a-vis such not existing --- for all sorts of things, like the existence of the Loch Ness monster and the yeti and Bigfoot, and the universe-as-simulation hypothesis, and the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis, and, hell, whether the world is literally a rendition of Asimov's End of Eternity (which is fictitious, but which seamlessly fits in with our real world in terms of consistency, if only you wouldn't insist on evidence)."

Wow. I think I see your thought process.
You believe that if someone says "I don't know" this means " that means there is some probability it exists or doesn't exist."

That probability can't be established without evidence, AR. It isn't 50-50. It's non-calculable.

Statistical probabilities rely upon data points.

Do you believe it is honest to draw conclusions based on guesses? And you think that's scientific?

[Spence Tepper]

AR
Someone who actually witnessed what they believe was Loch Ness or Big Foot is miles ahead of you.
Why? Because they are basing their interpretation on something. Something was there.

You are basing yours on nothing. No evidence.

How can that be sincere?

[Brian Hines]

Spence, it would be more accurate if you had said that someone BELIEVED they saw something that could have been the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.

People BELIEVE they saw aliens abduct them, transport them to a spaceship, and conduct experiments on them. Belief and reality often are two very different things.

Someone like Appreciative Reader who reasonably looks at evidence from afar can come to a more accurate conclusion than someone who was mistaken in what they claimed to directly see.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Again AR
You wrote
A scientific worldview rejects (recall the functional equivalence of 'not accepting' and 'rejecting') such conclusions as are not scientifically defensible...

'Not accepting ' is what you do before testing. You don't accept a hypothesis except to test it.
'rejecting' is what you do when the experiment fails to support your hypothesis. That's after testing.

So, testing is critical. You can rely upon someone else's results, of they are hard science. But short of that, lacking knowledge, your conclusions aren't scientific, nor of a scientific world view. A scientific world view is a view to the unknown, a journey into the unknown, using the tools of science.

Otherwise your version of No God is no better than Loch Ness or the Garden Nomes.
The unknown can't be scaled, or made into probabilities. It must be accepted as unknown.

And as long as something is in the unknown, it can't be accepted or rejected on scientific grounds.

AR, you really need to take a course on the Philosophy of Science and a class in Experimental Methodology to see the difference.

Hypothesis Testing can't begin unless you have some scientific control. Lacking that, there isn't a hypothesis to reject or accept.

"I don't Know" shouldn't be hard for you. It's the honest state we are all in for most things.

[spence Tepper]

I'm surprised Brian by your comment:
"Spence, it would be more accurate if you had said that someone BELIEVED they saw something that could have been the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot. "

What I wrote was...
"Someone who actually witnessed what they believe was Loch Ness or Big Foot is miles ahead of you."

This is what they believed they saw. And the experience they now must live with. Objectively it could be anything. But they saw something.

For you to discredit the sincerity of that witness is to deny reality. We can investigate what the truth is behind their witness. But to deny that witness would require real science, not judgements of others' experience.

The different reality different people must live in is a part of this reality, Brian. I'm sure you understand this.

Or else, please provide the scientific evidence, not only of what they thought they saw, but even of what they actually saw, as the basis of your conclusion.

[Appreciative Reader]

Damn, Spence, how on earth do I NOT respond after this, when you throw in a direct challenge like that, no matter that I said not once but twice that I wouldn't?! :----)

-------

"Now, you have made a claim, that God has been tested scientifically, to the rigorous standards of today's science, the standards by which we define Science today (not the medieval science of the past or the more current fake news science)

I challenge you to provide evidence of your claim."

.................That's straightforward enough. In fact, I've already done that in my last comment, that I quoted from. I don't mind doing it one more time, more explicitly this time.

One of the definitions of God was as Zeus or his son Thor, who commanded the lightning and the storms. Elsewhere it was Indra or Varun, who likewise commanded the lightning and storms and the waters. When science clearly showed the mechanism of these natural phenomena, Zeus and Thor and Indra and Varun were disproved. Now you can backpedal, you can furiously shift goalposts, as theists tend to do, by now claiming that Zeus and Thor and Indra and Varun are myth and metaphor, that the real God is something else altogether.

Another very simple example. Another definition of God is the God of the Bible, who created the world ~6,000 years ago. When science clearly showed that age of the universe is ~14 billion years, that God was put to rest right there. Again, as with other theists, you may choose to run with the goalposts rather than running with the ball, and now claim that that creation myth was mere myth, and the essence of the God of the Bible is more subtle.

Like I said, Sagan's garage dragon very effectively exposes the fallacy of that kind of a shape-shifting God. Not that you really need the dragon for that, merely seeing the goalposts whizz around ought to be sufficient.

Challenge met. What now? We should have decided on the wager beforehand!!

-----------------

"Keep in mind, the only basis for true objectivity, and science, is to have a claim that can be proven or disproven."

.................Exactly my point. When you make a claim that cannot be put to the test, then is not a scientific claim at all. You know, Popper's falsifiability. And to make a claim that is not scientific, and to believe in a claim that is not scientific, is to betray a worldview that is not fundamentally scientific.

I wonder why you don't get this straightforward argument.

If you posit a God that cannot be tested at all, at least not by such means as we have available at this time, then that is to posit a worldview that is by definition beyond testing at this time, that cannot be falsified at this time. As such, while it may not be possible to directly disprove such a claim, nevertheless we can, for want of evidence, and until such time as we do have evidence, set aside such a claim. And to "set aside" the claim is to not accept that claim. And to not accept the claim is functionally equivalent to rejecting the claim.

-----------------

The direct disproving or debunking of certain God-ideas that we did in the first part of the comment, that is hard atheism. The setting aside the God-claim for want of evidence, that is soft atheism. Methodologically distinct, clearly, but functionally exactly the same.

And I hope you will not now veer off into some non sequitur, or otherwise change the subject. You challenged me to show some instance of God having been disproved, and I immediately supplied you with two. Nor is such a list of debunking limited only to those two, as you can no doubt work out for yourself. What now? Will you now clearly go on record and agree that the only way that God is still attempted to be defended by theist apologists is by shifting goalposts? And that the subtle God that now remains with us is not disproved simply because that idea cannot be tested at all; and, in as much as this violates Popper's falsifiability test, this isn't a scientific claim at all, and, as such, belief in such a God cannot possibly a part of a scientific worldview?

[Spence Tepper]

AR
You wrote:
"One of the definitions of God was as Zeus or his son Thor, who commanded the lightning and the storms. Elsewhere it was Indra or Varun, who likewise commanded the lightning and storms and the waters. When science clearly showed the mechanism of these natural phenomena, Zeus and Thor and Indra and Varun were disproved. Now you can backpedal, you can furiously shift goalposts, as theists tend to do, by now claiming that Zeus and Thor and Indra and Varun are myth and metaphor, that the real God is something else altogether."

How could you possibly test for the existence of these Gods scientifically?
And how do you know they are really God?

Further, you are confusing the mechanics with the source in your comments.
And your definitions aren't agreed upon by the scientific community.

Look, AR, you pick up a stone and toss it.
Did YOU toss the stone? Or the bones and muscles in your hand?

We dismiss these "God" explanations precisely because they cannot be practically tested.

But that doesn't mean they don't exist. It means for practical purposes we define causes as those things we can measure.

But there are many causes to these things we can't measure.

Maybe one day you will meet the Gods where they live and they can explain it to you.

Until then you have failed to provide science. You are using history and culture to patch together what you are calling science.

I get it.

You haven't done science.

Real science learned long ago not to make claims about stuff it can't measure. And real science isn't testing for Zeus or varun.

If you are seriously claiming that meteorology results confirm God doesn't exist, show me the experiment, hard science, testing, with a nice citation: not for some cultural ancient myth that no scientist would attempt to test today, but a real test of the existence of a higher consciousness or power, give it any name you like, in a controlled lab. A hypothesis that can succeed or fail.

By your definition, because all things have mechanics, nothing can exist that causes their actions.

All science proves you are wrong every day. New causes are uncovered all the time. Most hypotheses are too simplistic and there is much more, often new principles, new forces uncovered all the time.

[Spence Tepper]

In the meanwhile AR, all you have done is proved my point. People who are ignorant of the unknown should not draw conclusions about it. Because time and science will prove them wrong.

And for things that can't be tested? Or that science won't be able to test for another several hundred years?

Who hold any attitude at all?

All science supports that.

If you draw a conclusion without scientific evidence to confirm your conclusion, you are likely to be inaccurate or even wrong.

So why believe anything? It's a personal choice. If thinking there is no god and the universe is a blank gets you through the day, I support that belief.

And if believing Jesus loves you and he came to your daughter's birthday party, well, did it give you a moment of happiness? Then I believe in it too.

The really important things are going to be personal decisions. They will likely be things that are not strictly based on science. Because, while science can help us, each day we are confronted with the unknown, and we only have so much time to deal with it.

If a meditation practice gives you happiness, peace and understanding, helps you function, then isn't that the more important thing?

And for this there is hard science. And it points to increased cognitive functioning, increased cortex health, reduced indicators of stress, even repaired DNA.

So why discuss what can't be agreed upon, because neither you nor I have the transferrable data?

Why make such claims that are easily dismissed? Unless they mean something to you.

Atheism must mean something to you, must have personal value to you. What is that?

Not to debate that, but to honor it.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Wow. I think I see your thought process.
You believe that if someone says "I don't know" this means " that means there is some probability it exists or doesn't exist."

That probability can't be established without evidence, AR. It isn't 50-50. It's non-calculable."

.................

Hah, now you're simply playing around with words.

Let's put this in stark terms, that you cannot weasel out of by using abstractions that do not in effect address the issue at all.

Let's say you keep getting phone calls from someone claiming they have a dragon living in their garage, and if you don't start paying them a tithe, then in exactly four years time your whole world, that is to say you yourself and everyone and everything you hold dear will be completely and fully devastated via the power of that dragon, that answers to your tormentor and to him alone. (Which, incidentally, is exactly what the Church does, with some differences as to the details, but whatever.)

What do you do now? Do you believe in the dragon, and in these threats? Sure, to not know is to not put in probability figures that you can defend, but I suggest that for any but a vanishingly small de facto subjective probability put on the likelihood of such a thing happening, you'll either pay up, or at least pursue the issue further.

-----------------

Of course, I realize the weakness of this analogy lies in the fact that there's a direct threat made. So that even if you do not give credence to dragons, nevertheless you might give credence to a threat having been made at all, and basis the latter do something (whether that something involves paying up, or contacting the police, or hiring private detectives, or whatever).

My point is, when you say that in the absence of objectively defensible statistical probability figures, you will never directly engage with an issue, or hold some opinion at all, you're ...I don't know, I don't like to say you're being dishonest, but it is either that or you harbor some very weird worldview where all sorts of things might be possible.

Again, as I write this last sentence, I realize you will say that you simply choose to not have an opinion at all.

You might perhaps get away with claiming that for things that don't impact you at all, but for things that do impact you? Which is why I put in that threat scenario. In fact, let me get back and directly put another threat scenario to you? Christian fundamentalists would claim that you and yours will be damned forever, and draw on Dante to discuss the exact nature of your damnation, if you didn't do such and such and such. Ditto Islamic fundamentalists, or whatever. What do you do? This is exactly equivalent to the threat scenario.

To not consider this at all because you don't have grounds to scientifically evaluate these things, and therefore to not do anything about these claims at all, is to, in effect, not accept them, or to reject them.

-----------------

Again, like I said, your entire argument seems predicated on drawing, in effect, a spurious distinction between "I do not accept this claim" and "I reject this claim" --- which two positions are in fact functionally equivalent.

[Appreciative Reader]

Okay, Spence, I really must stop compulsively answering these posts now, else these impossible contortions will keep going on and on and on.

As well as the two other posts I've just now put up, let me, of the whole list of arguments you put up, address two. (And the nature of these two issues you raise, that I address now, will make clear why I'm calling them contortions.)

-------

(1) "And how do you know they are really God?"

Duh. Because that is how people who believe(d) in those God(s) define(d) those Gods.

Vast hordes of Christians believed --- and while nowhere close to so many, but still, far more of fundamental nut jobs than you'd expect still believe --- that God created the world ~6,000 years ago. To show that is not so is to show that that particular God-idea is fallacious.

Ditto the Zeus-Thor-Indra-Varun thing.

Don't your really get it? *I* don't have to know "they are really God". The believers have defined their own God. The onus of defining the terms of the claim vest with the person making the claim, as well as onus of proving it. I don't have to go and check the claimant's definitions for veracity. That's, like, entirely topsy-turvy. Some thiest has defined his God. That claim has been disproved. End of story.

Sorry, Spence. Your challenge has been squarely met. You're simply twisting and turning now to weasel out of the wager now. (Not that any wager had actually been laid, but I suppose merely acknowledging that the challenge has been met is wager enough, and something you'd clearly not admit to.)

-----------------

(2) "Further, you are confusing the mechanics with the source in your comments."

.................Hah, yet another goal shitf. How entirely predictable.

Originally the claim was that Thor, or else his papa Zeus, hurls down bolts of thunder. (Elsewhere it is Indra and Varun doing the flinging.) Now, when the details of the mechanism have been clearly shown, you are trying to argue that what those Gods are doing is setting this whole mechanism in place.

That's utter drivel, for the simple reason that that is not what what people who believed in these things claimed at all. That's a post facto, a posteriori, redefinition of the terms of the claim. In other words, shifting your goal posts.

Sorry, now you're simply going into wild contortions in an attempt to somehow keep from having to admit that your position lacks merit. I'm afraid there's no other way to put this.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR:
You asked
"Let's say you keep getting phone calls from someone claiming they have a dragon living in their garage, and if you don't start paying them a tithe, then in exactly four years time your whole world, that is to say you yourself and everyone and everything you hold dear will be completely and fully devastated via the power of that dragon, that answers to your tormentor and to him alone. (Which, incidentally, is exactly what the Church does, with some differences as to the details, but whatever.)"

This sounds like organizations from the past and the present. They used to be churches. Of course the mafia is well know. Different Mafias in different societies do this now. There are gangs in Asia, South America, and nearly every large city in America, as well as in Europe. Now they are some corporations, who threaten smaller corporations to prevent them from offering any but their own services. The larger corporation has control over some resources, and if the smaller one doesn't give them exclusive rights, they will end their access to the resources they need, and their business will be destroyed. Happening all the time. Nothing to do with Religion.

Some police officers also attempt to shake people down and threaten them to extort funds. And even in government, where one politician threatens another with some inside knowledge of an indiscretion.

Even in families, senior members, parents, older brothers and sisters, coerce, impose themselves, even rape their younger siblings, or threaten their elderly parents. And they may go to church or not. But if they are confessing in most any Church, they will get counseling to treat each other as they wish to be treated, and invited to get professional assistance so that they can learn to do so. It's called an intervention.

You have falsely identified this practice of coercion and extortion with religion and fantasy. It is a very real part of our world, and not limited to either of the two areas. Stalin was an Atheist, as were most of Hitler's top bosses, and Hitler himself thought of religion only as a tool to add to his extensive Propaganda tool box.

You are trying to make a point about Religion, but you have combined it with something else. Variables that are independent of religion. We can say that the coercion and extortion are the problem, and they reflect human qualities that have no connection to religion or the imagination, when you look at their existence in all cultures and systems of belief. In fact, one might offer that a better imagination would develop a means for gain that does not require such a risky tactic as threat, coercion and extortion.

You asked...

"What do you do now? Do you believe in the dragon, and in these threats? Sure, to not know is to not put in probability figures that you can defend, but I suggest that for any but a vanishingly small de facto subjective probability put on the likelihood of such a thing happening, you'll either pay up, or at least pursue the issue further."

I'd ask them a little more about their Dragon. How many people know a Dragon? This is a great opportunity!

It is possible they need mental health support. And I might try to connect them to a Helpline. I would never question the reality of their Dragon for them. Because it may be real for them, and that is something they may have little control over. I might offer that we find a means of treating everyone with kindness and find another way for their Dragon to be of help to the world.

Science and objective reality have very little to do with this situation. Except the science of Psychology, which has a great deal to do with this situation. If we ignore the principles of Psychology, we are also ignoring science and reality.

But from that perspective, you start with respect first.
And in truth, in any discussion about subjective matters, respect is the first and constant condition for two - way communication.

Now, do I need to establish the probability of the physical reality of the Dragon? Certainly not. Who knows?

It is a subjective reality and it has been presented that way, and there are all sorts of Psychological tools and means to further explore that world objectively. I would never challenge the caller to prove his Dragon exists physically. I will first accept the reality that was presented to me, and then find out more about it.

[Uchit]

I would be much more comfortable in believing in unicorns than believing Gurinder Singh Dhillon is god in human form - which millions of blind brainwashed fools believe.

One individual who regularly spams this site openly admits that they have affiliations to Lucifer in a blog on this site. They are cloaked RSSB agents that are guided by demonic entities so be careful what you listen to and call your truth.

[Dungeness]

@ Brian : "It would be more accurate if you had said that someone BELIEVED they saw something that could have been the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.
Someone like Appreciative Reader who reasonably looks at evidence from afar can come to a more accurate conclusion than someone who was mistaken in what they claimed to directly see."

In my opinion, the evidentiary claims re: "Nessie" or Big Foot are a bit more substantive
though. Sonar or photos, while fake-able and in many cases easily dismissed, are not
always conclusively so. What's interesting is the extent to which a scientific "worldview"
does however. And with a trigger-ready finger. The half-sneer and rat-a-tat shoot-down
of any such claim, often subconscious, whether of Nessie or theism, comes faster than
any gunslinger's draw.

To quote an old friend Rob Riggs who wrote of the paranormal events in the Big Thicket
in Texas (I sense an eye-roll. My ESP? :-) :

"What we need is an approach to research in this area that gives in neither to the
inherent cynicism of unquestioned scientism nor to the true believer fervor of trekkie
UFO buffs. What is called for and what must be consistently applied is an open-
minded appeal to reason and to actual human experience that does not deny that
strange things may sometimes be witnessed just because they don't fit into an
"expert's" preconceived definition of what is possible."

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR!
You wrote:
"you harbor some very weird worldview where all sorts of things might be possible."

Yes, that's the view. If you had seen what I have seen, you would be less likely to conclude anything, not more.

Isn't that interesting? More experience, more exploration leads to less conclusions.

Even what you see, hear, taste, think is all a construction. It's not just about inner worlds. The outer view is reconstructed! And you system of belief actually influences what you see!

And therefore what you feel is real!

And what you choose to believe!

I would say science is all we have to help navigate our experience. But real science is expensive and in its infancy. So what we do with our daily lives is more like a hobby than a professional practice of science.

Our state as human beings is very sad when we really understand things a little more deeply. And for me that is connected with experience. And yet, the ability to see it all, expanded understanding, is quite a wonderful thing. And there is hope in greater things. And yet what can we say, but we understand very little. The more I see, the more I am sure I understand even less of it.

The very understanding of even a fraction of the unknown, makes this clear.

[Spence Tepper]

Now back to our challenge, AR
You have not provided hard scientific evidence of any test of the existence of God.

The only definition of God that matters, to claim you have scientific results, to meet the conditions for scientific results, is the definition agreed upon for testing by the scientific community. You haven't provided that.

And you have provided meteorology results never set up to reveal anything more than the mechanics of weather. Yet you use these results to make claims the scientists who discovered these things never claimed.

Science has not actually tested the existence of God under controlled conditions.

Many hypotheses are proven wrong and are refined as scientific facts emerge. The theory may still be largely correct though the mechanics are a little different. You call this changing position.

Science calls it discovery and development.

And so does spirituality.

You would need to get the scientific community to agree to your definition and your hypothesis, as well as an agreed method of testing and measuring in order for your results to carry validity.

You didn't do that.

You haven't cited anyone who has. You have picked both definitions and scientific facts and combined them to make a claim in support of your beliefs. That's argumentation, not science.

Your argument is that any definition from any culture is adequate. Which scientists testing for the presence of God agree with you?

Rather than simply say "Hard sciences haven't tested for the existence of God" you actually attempt to claim they have!

You claim what you wrote constitutes an example of science.

If that is so Atheism stands on a shaky platform of shifting rhetoric tonight, one that includes false statements about science.

Here is the fundamental flaw. I'll state it in three ways.

1. What science hasn't tested science cannot comment upon.
2. Evidence that has not been gathered is not non-existent.
3. The unknown is not non - existent. It is the basis of scientific inquiry.

[Sonia]

Most people believe in God after they die. As ridiculous as that statement is, it attests to the simple fact that you don’t know what you don’t know.

@AR, we too had a Shadowfax living in our garage after my niece bored of her My Little Pony collection.

[Sonia]

I found this on dummies.com:

“The terms law and theory mean different things to scientists than they do to the average person. Scientifically speaking, a law is a statement about something that happens: When you jump off a diving board, you’re going to travel in a downward direction. A scientific law doesn’t say why you fall toward the pool—only that you do fall toward the pool. Laws usually rely on a mathematical equation, and they’re always true. (In case you were wondering, the formula for gravity is

F = G M1 M2 over r2 (Sorry, couldn’t paste the actual formula here due to formatting restrictions but you get the picture, I hope.)

where F represents the force due to gravity between two masses, which are represented by m1 and m2, and G represents the gravitational constant.)

A theory is a detailed explanation of the phenomenon. It consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported through repeated testing. Theories are widely accepted as true in the scientific community, but in order to hold that status, they must never have been proven wrong. If a theory doesn’t hold up, it’s disproven. Theories can also evolve based on new evidence, which doesn’t mean the original theory was wrong; it simply means it was incomplete.”

You may have already noticed that I’m terribly infatuated with Gravity so really loved that they slipped it into this piece. But what really grabbed my attention in the excerpt above was this:

“A scientific law doesn’t say WHY you fall toward the pool”

It’s the WHYs in life that I’m most curious about. Like, what is your motivation? Why does one choose to believe a certain thing in the face of “evidence” “proving” otherwise. At the end of the day we all see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear, believe what we want to believe and do what we want to do. But why?

Psychology is my first love. Science is a summer fling that fades in autumn. (disproven)

But there’s always next year which will certainly bring a new discovery! ;)

[Sonia]

@umami

Kentucky Fried Movie—a cult classic. Lol

[271 days left]

“What drove me to write this book was this discovery that the nature of "nothing" had changed, that we've discovered that "nothing" is almost everything and that it has properties. That to me is an amazing discovery.” — Lawrence Krauss

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

This is where unclear definitions can obscure what is being said. If nothing is everything, then we must be clear about the difference between “non-existent nothings” and “existent nothings.” “Existent nothings” exist and create everything, according to Krauss. “Non-existent nothings” do not exist and cannot happen. What cannot happen cannot create the Universe.

“ I don't ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I'm concerned it's turtles all the way down.” —Lawrence Krauss

To say, “it’s turtles all the way down,” is another way of saying, “something is eternal.” Something that is eternal is the definition of God for some people, so we have to define God to have a clear discussion.

Consciousness is nothing... which is to say formless and invisible.

[umami]

Sonia,

Do you remember that bit? I just read through a list of sketches in KFM, and I don't think it's from there after all. Where then?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
Let's expand a little on this argument you have attempted to defend: that not accepting a hypotheses and rejecting it are functionally the same things.

Scientifically, they are extremely different.

An hypothesis is not accepted until it has been tested under controlled experimental conditions.

It is in a state of "not accepted".

Then it is tested to determine if it is true. A method is invented to get evidence. If the evidence is statistically conclusive demonstrating the effect of the hypothesized variable, the results are reported as "statistically significant".

Then others in the scientific community review the theory, hypothesis, method and results. If it appears sound, it is accepted provisionally, awaiting replication by other scientists.

If the theory appears sound but there is some internal or external validity issues, these are reported by peers in their review and either the original authors of the study or others may attempt a new experimental design that is valid.

Only when the results are peer reviewed, and replicated, will the scientific community accept them. Accept them means accept that either the hypothesis has evidence to support it, or that the evidence indicates it is not supported, in which case it is rejected. The results of the experiment, replicated and confirmed as valid, must be accepted in order for the hypothesis to be either accepted or rejected.

Let me repeat this. The results of valid scientific testing must be accepted before the hypothesis can be either accepted or rejected on scientific grounds.

Note that the entire process between "not accepted" where we start and "rejected" is actually the entire practice of modern science.

Therefore all of science makes the difference between "not accepted" and "rejected".

To honor science the science based Atheist does not accept hypothesis about God without rigorous testing.

But it is precisely because they honor the objectivity of science and its superiority over their own untested thinking that the true scientist rejects no hypothesis without rigorous scientific testing.

[umami]

I think it's just that God is beside the point in science. Imagine if religious panels had final say in the peer review process.

[Appreciative Reader]

Spence, I’m sorry to say our discussion has devolved to bizarre levels now. I really hadn’t expected you of all people to descend to desperately clutching at straws in this manner.

You keep ignoring the points I raise, and insist on straddling your soapbox instead. You keep conflating the actual conduct of scientific experiments with a scientific worldview. You keep ignoring the implications of the burden of proof. You betray (or at least, you project) zero understanding of the entire discussion around the functional equivalence of “accepting” and “not-rejecting”. In discussing the dragon/unicorn thought experiment, you keep repeating you will try to find out more about the beast, despite having been told at the outset that it is impervious to all means of detection available to today’s science and technology; and you keep veering off into non sequiturs, like saying you’ll try to test whether the person making the (dragon/unicorn/religious/mystical) claim is of sound mind.

I don’t see this discussion really going anywhere, what it is doing is lurchingly retracing its own already trod steps, but still, I’ll try to address here, in one single post, the issues you raise in your last three or four posts that you addressed to me. The result is likely to be a lengthy post, I’m afraid, and so as not to make it even longer I’ll simply title out the main themes that you’ve written on (and that I’ll respond to), rather than actually quoting your words.

.
DISPROVING SPECIFIC GOD IDEAS : YOUR CHALLENGE

This is the part that I find truly bizarre. The part where you keep insisting, in the face of all rationality and reason, that no god ideas have ever been disproved by science, despite clear instances of such having been promptly presented.

Recall two of the most conspicuous contortions you had to resort to in the course of your last few comments.

First, when in response to your challenge I presented you with two specific examples of God ideas having been disproven, you turned around to demand of me how I know those are real Gods. Can you really, even now, not see the absurdity of even asking that question? Some theist has presented very specific God ideas, and I have shown how a scientific worldview clearly refutes those ideas; whereupon what do you do? You demand of ME how I can be sure those are valid God ideas!! (And, when the entirely bizarre nature of the thought process that can think up this objection is pointed out to you, what do you do? You simply ignore it, and move on to talk of other things.)

And second, you then do the typical goalpost-shifting thing that theists seem to specialize in.

I’m going to address your “challenge” one more time now. Despite the fact that I’ve done it twice already, and despite having little real hope of piercing through any better this time. (And all we have on wager is your clear admission that your challenge has been met.)

ONE: The thurder-and-lightning producing Gods, Thor, and Odin, and Zeus, and Indra, and Varun, and whoever and whatever else that specializes in this superpower. Modern science has shown us the exact mechanism of these phenomena, and that mechanism has no need at all for any God entities. (That is, to spell it out, we have no need to resort to hypothesize Gods in order to understand those phenomena as well as we do, ergo following Occam's Razor we have no need to posit any Gods, and we can safely not accept, or reject, the God hypothesis as superfluous and unnecessary in respect of those specific phenomena, and therefore those specific Gods.)

Further, we do have a means of directly falsifying the god claim as well. Believers in these Gods claimed that propitiating them by praying to them and sacrificing to them can help turn these elements in one’s favor, and angering them attracts their wrath. No one does that these days, and yet we are not visited by some terrible wrath of these Gods, as represented by these elements wreaking some terrible disaster on us. To not see this as debunking is, I’m sorry to say, to harbor, despite an education in science, a decidedly irrational and anti-scientific worldview.

TWO: The God of the Bible, that people did believe in literally in vast numbers in times past, and in not negligible numbers even today. Showing that the creation myth presented in the Bible is erroneous, by showing that the mechanism of how the universe arose has no need of invoking a God, is enough to debunk this claim. Directly showing that the age of the universe is far older than claimed by the alleged Word of God, as recorded in the Bible, is direct falsification as well.

THREE: The sun-god in Norse legends that is driven in a chariot by two horses (or, in other versions, by one horse, whatever). As well as the sun-god of the Aztecs, that, unless propitiated with human sacrifice, will not appear to us again and will abandon us to eternal darkness and death. The "how" of the sun apparently going around the earth has been explained clearly enough by science, and none of that has need to invoke either Gods or chariots or horses.

And the claim has been directly falsified as well, because no one sacrifices human hearts to the sun-god any more, and yet the sun rises in the east every single day.

.

Spence, you aren’t by any chance spoofing me, are you? Pulling my leg, playing a trick on me, by putting me in the distinctly ridiculous position of solemnly holding forth on these elementary things in all earnest like this? If that is the case, then I applaud you, because you did take me in completely so far, and even now I have no more than a very tentative suspicion that your arguments might be no more than a practical joke. So that if the idea was to play a practical joke on me, you’ve been entirely successful.

To claim in all seriousness that your challenge hasn’t been met, despite these clear examples having been presented (and plenty more can easily be thought of), is to either be completely oblivious of the implications of a scientific worldview, or, if that is not the case, then it is to be literally delusional. Unless of course this is all a joke.

In claiming that your challenge hasn't been met satisfactorily, the arguments you employ are the equivalent of asserting that science cannot debunk the claim that the moon is made of cheese. Sure, you won’t find actual peer-reviewed papers, describing elaborate experiments conducted, that clearly tell you that the moon isn’t made of cheese. But to latch on to that as some kind of justification for a worldview that claims that science does not directly refute clearly and DEMONSTRABLY absurd claims like that the moon is made of cheese (or that the sun is drawn around the earth by horses, and will abandon us unless we sacrifice to it; or that lightning and storms are caused by gods who will wreak destruction on us unless they are propitiated; or that the world was created six thousand years ago by a psychotic but immensely powerful god that will annihilate us and/or consign us to hell if we don’t abide by his commandments and his prophets’ and son’s instructions) is to have simply seen and maybe even to have participated in science, but to have come away with no more than a cargo-cult impression of what science actually is and what a scientific worldview actually entails.

.

WHAT YOU SEE AS THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN ATHEISM (OR AT LEAST, IN THIS PARTICULAR VERSION OF ATHEISM)

Let me quote you first on this, before likewise enumerating my response :

“Here is the fundamental flaw. I'll state it in three ways.
1. What science hasn't tested science cannot comment upon.
2. Evidence that has not been gathered is not non-existent.
3. The unknown is not non - existent. It is the basis of scientific inquiry.”

(1.) “Science” does not comment on anything. People do.

The scientific method is a tool that people use to suss out what is reasonable to believe, and what not. Thereafter, it is people who arrive at positions on different claims and issues.

We’ve been through this already, the difference between the scientific method and a scientific worldview. You’ve ignored that last discussion, and gone on with your inner monologue without referencing our past discussion on this.

To imagine that a scientific worldview entails referencing the scientific method only in such instances where there has been some formal scientific study, and in everything else either believing any random thing that one likes, or else not taking any position at all, is to arrive at some cargo-cult version of “science”.

The core of the scientific method is that one will not accept any hypothesis that one cannot back up with evidence. Any position --- and that includes the God question as well (or at least, some versions of it, that is to say, some specific abstract God-ideas) --- that cannot admit of direct evidence, it is simply not “scientific” to believe at all. It is not that no evidence possible equals we have carte blanche to believe whatever we want, or that we must necessarily suspend any conclusion at all (which suspension of all conclusion is in practice sometimes/often simply not even feasible, in any case). It is that no evidence equals we have no reason to hold that position as true, no reason to accept it.

(2) “Evidence” refers to some support for some proposition or some hypothesis. Therefore, if evidence has not been “gathered”, it is literally not evidence at all.

Sure, whether we self-important humans catalog something or cogitate on something does not in any way impact the underlying reality. That is understood, obviously. Not once have I suggested otherwise.

The point is, in as much as evidence has not been “gathered”, it may perhaps exist, but in as much as we do not yet know of it, it is entirely and wholly fallacious to base any conclusion on such evidence. In as much as some conclusion that you seek to support via such not-yet-gathered evidence is fallacious, such conclusion we are constrained to not accept, that is to say, we reject such conclusion.

This is entirely straightforward. And your views on this are entirely mistaken.

(3) Similar to above. Agreed, the unknown is not non-existent, and, rather than saying “it is the basis of scientific enquiry”, I think it may be more precise to phrase it thus, “It can be the basis of scientific enquiry if we should choose to make it so.”

Anyway, minor nitpicking aside, I have not once suggested otherwise. But the question isn’t what does exist; the question is what do we believe, what belief or claim do we accept. If something is unknown then we can’t go around believing random things about it. (Which, mind you, is what you are doing. You’re claiming there are no grounds to do science on God. And you take that as carte blanche to go ahead and believe in God --- which you have every right to --- but where you err is in claiming that such an attitude comports with a scientific worldview. The fact is it doesn’t.)

Nor is it that what is technically unknown, as far as formal science, we will necessarily suspend all judgment on. That science hasn’t explicitly considered and tested whether the moon is made of cheese, or whether the sun is drawn by horses around the earth, or whether the sun will not rise unless propitiated with sacrifice, does not mean that we will necessarily suspend all judgment on such. (And I don’t mean idiosyncratic personal judgment, I mean a conclusion that comports with a scientific worldview.) We know the approximate composition of the moon, so we can certainly conclude that it isn’t made of cheese. And what is more such conclusion will be fully in agreement with a scientific worldview, even though there are no papers published specifically on the subject, “Is the moon made of cheese?” Ditto questions about whether the sun is a God that is drawn by horses around the sun, or whether the universe was created by a psychotic and decidedly unpleasant God six thousand years ago.

.
Those aren’t flaws in atheism, as you claim they are. They are flaws in your reasoning and your own POV.

.

YOUR POST ON THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE OF “NOT ACCEPTING” VIS-À-VIS REJECTING A CLAIM

What you argue here is no more than yet more contortions, Spence.

That the hypothesis is not accepted (and, for that matter, not rejected either) by the people carrying on the experiment and for the duration of the experiment and analysis, that hardly needs pointing out. In any case, it *has* already been pointed out, more than once, in a separate context, which would be the context of distinguishing between the POV appropriate to the scientist researching some specific hypothesis, vis-à-vis the POV appropriate for everyone else. That is an out and out non sequitur as far as this particular discussion.

Should the experiment not bear the results the hypothesis predicts, then in the setting aside of the hypothesis there is no universal distinction between “not accepting” and “rejecting”, as you suggest. To speak of this in the context that you do is to not understand what was said at all, not even a little bit (hint, repeated for the third or fourth time already: refer back to Osho Robbins’s analogy of “Not guilty” vis-à-vis “Innocent”); or else it is to resort to deliberate disingenuity.

Here’s a concrete example that will make the distinction clear, using the overtly formal scientific setting that you seem to imagine imparts some especial sanctity that everyday examples don’t. (It doesn’t, actually, and everyday examples are equally as effective, provided you grok the actual underlying implications of the scientific method. Nevertheless, I’ll try to accommodate your apparent fetish for examples from formal science.)

Contrast the Ether theory with the String Theory. The former is an example of a hypothesis rejected, while the latter is an example of a hypothesis not (yet) accepted. The experimental results in the case of the former clearly refuted the prediction that the ether theory had thrown up, it clearly showed that, rather than there showing up a difference in the speed of light, instead the speed of light remained the same. That is direct refutation, leading to rejection. As far as the latter, there has been no direct refutation, at all, so far. But nor has there been any evidence that bears it out, no evidence that justifies bypassing Occam’s Razor. In as much as no evidence has been found, the theory is not accepted.

(Disclaimer: This example focuses only on the difference between “not accepting” and “rejecting”, and not on the actual promise that string theory holds out, or the fact that people are still working on string theory while no one works on ether theory. Don’t focus on that part of it, I clearly recognize that in that specific respect this analogy/example is imperfect. That string theory is not, as a result of yielding no evidence, tossed right out the window as the ether theory has been, is because it is early days still, and because it otherwise explains our observations so very completely. No doubt if in another fifty or seventy years string theory still does not bear out any evidence [that isn’t explained equally well by other, simpler hypotheses], so as to justify its far more complex structure, then it might be relegated to the museum or the trashcan as well, conceivably.)

.
Come on, man. Do I really need to spell this out like this all over again in words of one syllable? Have my many posts on this, already presented in this thread, as well as the many discussions elsewhere (including one whole thread we’d both participated in that was on this very subject) not made the distinction between the two amply clear, that you should compose the post you did just preceding, that betrays zero understanding of the difference between the two (and indeed between soft atheism and hard atheism)?

You know what it looks like to me? You’re not actually reading my posts. You’re basically focused on your soapboxing, while going through the motions of responding to my posts, all with the aim of somehow passing off your theistic worldview as somehow not anti-scientific. Otherwise you wouldn’t so blatantly misread and/or misrepresent this part so completely so late into this discussion; and you wouldn’t keep on repeatedly and totally missing the point of the unicorn/dragon thought experiment (and keep raising tangential non sequiturs around it rather than actually addressing the meat of the argument presented via that construct); and you wouldn’t keep raising these wild objections to these very obvious and simplistic God-ideas having been clearly debunked by science (even as some more subtle God-ideas admittedly remain beyond the reach of such easy and direct debunking).

-----------------

Apologies, Spence, if some of what I’ve said here seems rude. I really truly hope this thread will not sour the general regard we have for each other. But … how do you even begin to hold a coherent conversation with someone who insists, in the teeth of all reasonable argument, that such blatant irrationalities like the Olympian Gods and the Aztec Sun God and Biblical God and the Norse Gods as literally depicted --- as well as, presumably, the moon made of cheese --- are not ruled out by a scientific worldview? With someone who, at the end of a detailed discussion (indeed, more than one detailed discussion) around “rejecting” and “not accepting” (and soft atheism and hard atheism) comes out with an elaborate post that betrays either zero understanding of what was being said all along, either that or else it deliberately seeks to misdirect?

I’m going to walk away now from this discussion, but without the hope that I’d held yesterday of arriving in future at closer agreement and better understanding, because how on earth do you even address this bizarre state of affairs, where on one hand there is familiarity with (some of) the techniques of science, but on the other hand there is complete cluelessness as to its implications? And I’m going to walk away more resolutely this time than I was able to yesterday, because although it started out promisingly enough, what this discussion has now devolved into is an apparently endless exchange of comments that is neither illuminating nor, at this point, particularly pleasurable. Again, my apologies.

[manjitd]

Appreciative Reader wrote:

"Spence, I’m sorry to say our discussion has devolved to bizarre levels now. I really hadn’t expected you of all people to descend to desperately clutching at straws in this manner."

I haven't really been following any of these discussions, but this caught my eye.

This discussion has devolved to bizarre levels only now?

I'm sorry, Sir, but from other perspectives, such as mine, the whole discussion is utterly bizarre, absurd and futile from your very inception of it.

Your entire argument is, imo, a "desperate" attempt to clutch at the flimsiest of straws (your so called intellect and "rationality") in order to remain afloat in a raging ocean your intellect and reason cannot even begin to comprehend. Even logically and rationally your argument, like Brian's, is incoherent and based on circular logic and a profound ignorance of the relevant data and philosophy (hence the profound absurdity of this discussion on multiple levels). Your balking at this mystic's experiential insight, with your arguments that "then, there is nothing rational to distinguish between x mystical insight/experience and y mystical experience/insight" renders it no less true, as if your individual mental preferences dictate how reality should work.

As I said, utterly bizarre.

Dear Spence - I am somewhat non-plussed at your incredible egotism. Just how many more rounds of chaurasi do you wish to revolve in? Do you not know that Sri Maharaj Brian Ji is a, no THE Bulldozer of Truth, a Spiritual Master Extra-ordinaire? Why do you resist his inerrant Truth? Yes, neither unicorns or God are to be believed in, and not a shred of difference is there between the two! Yes, the world is an entirely meaningless accident, and science has everything worked out, from the origins of the physical universe, the evolution of life, and the mechanics of consciousness. Move along, no mystery here. Yes, our consciousness is a terrible accident, and nihilism is the only rational and logical approach to reality. Yes, science is no longer simply a tool but now has a personality and character, as Sri Maharaj Brian Ji reminded us recently when he teaches us the inerrant truth science "embraces" and "wants" things, not the conscious human beings, with all their numerous flaws, short-sightedness, bias and prejudices etc that are wielding this tool.

When on when, dear Spence, will you stop asserting your huge ego when communicating with such Great Agents of Truth like Sri Maharaj Brian Ji?

How many times must you be bulldozed by the truth?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"The part where you keep insisting, in the face of all rationality and reason, that no god ideas have ever been disproved by science, despite clear instances of such having been promptly presented."

If you had read what I wrote you would have seen the process science goes through to actually accept or reject hypotheses.

But without acknowldgement of how science works, you insist your world view is scientific. It is not. It may be very practical from your view. But science isn't always practical nor intuitive. Science doesn't select facts. It let's the facts soak for themselves. It gives the facts voice, through carefully controlled conditions.

Science provides the means to actually cut through people's different beliefs, especially their belief that their own logic is infallable, with a more objective method of peer review and control.

What you call bizarre levels is actually nothing more than the practice of science.

And you have no actual references to science in your examples.

That would be research specifically constructed to test the hypotheses that God does or does not exist.

Now, this is different from everyday practical thinking. But just as my examples demonstrated, the practical thinking of a slave owner or typical male 200 years ago has been proven wrong. That old thinking was based on available practical real world information at the time. Few examples were understood of the equality of all peoples, and so lacking that data, people justified their extent prejudices with the practical world view that such beliefs did not have real evidence.

It is the same error you are committing in selecting what to believe and submitting nothing to hard scientific investigation.

I see how strange these notions are to you, and I do not wish to offend you. I honor your personal choices.

But when anyone starts claiming scientific objectivity when they are not involved in scientific experiments and cannot site actual scientific work designed to test their claim, the "false claim" flag goes up.

I have been on point on this from the start and consistently.

And so long as a delineation of the scientific method, in contrast to your claims, irks you, I am obliged to continue, like a broken record, to repeat the basics of the scientific method.

[umami]

"1. What science hasn't tested science cannot comment upon.
2. Evidence that has not been gathered is not non-existent.
3. The unknown is not non - existent. It is the basis of scientific inquiry."

Hey, Spence.
Why does religion get to comment on what it hasn't tested? Why is religion privileged to tout faith, the antithesis of evidence gathering? The unknown is unknown by definition, so why should a priest have more authority on its content than a scientist?

We should at least distinguish between religion based on hearsay and mystic transport where there's perception.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Umamaj
The standard of truth for religion is belief, not science.

For science, belief emerges from fact.

In Religion, no facts are needed except belief as the standard of truth.

In the sub case of spirituality, it is corroborated and verified experience. A slightly lower standard than the hard sciences... In fact in the sciences this would be referred to as Quasi-Experimental design, or semi - experimental design. It's stronger than anecdotal accounts, and may be statistically significant, but often there is limited control over the variables.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Manoj
You ask how often I must be bulldozed.

It's a daily event for me. I've had my flesh peeled off so often I've just gotten used to the pain. What can I say?

OK, God, I got it. This is my fate. Proceed.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi again AR
You ask
"But … how do you even begin to hold a coherent conversation with someone who insists, in the teeth of all reasonable argument, that such blatant irrationalities like the Olympian Gods and the Aztec Sun God and Biblical God and the Norse Gods as literally depicted --- as well as, presumably, the moon made of cheese --- are not ruled out by a scientific worldview? "

Are you familiar with the work of Joseph Campbell, or Carl Jung?

They both share a theory they and others have researched extensively. This is the theory that similar threads run through these myths because they are symbolic representations of very real dynamics within the human psyche.

To you they are unreal. But what you are looking at are symbolic representations from the depths of the subconscious built into each of us as archetypes through which we view the world. The Hero, the Wise and knowing Teacher, and the Villain are archetypes. But as they are within each of us, and find life in is, conquering the villain often means listening to the Wise Sage and conquering the villain within ourselves. And emerging victorious may then require befriending those archetypes of the dark side within us. Incorporating that light and darkness within ourselves.

Until we do that, we often project that Archetypes onto others, seeing our Archetype, needing those around us to fulfill these roles as a means of resolving issues within ourselves.

But as they live within us, our is far more efficient to find and engage them within. And then we can see the people around us for who they really are, and not our projection.

BTW George Lucas relied heavily on Joseph Cambell's theories when he wrote Star Wars.

It isn't until Luke confronts the Darth Vader within himself that he can deal with Darth Vader. And once Vader is conquered, Luke forgives instantly, and seeks reunification.

[Manoj]

Why neither unicorns nor God are to be believed in or the Greedy little Gurinder Singh Dhillion & rs cult!

A deception of a different kind, lying on stage lying through life and living the ultimate lie.

Try not to be fooled by the biggest fool of them all "Gurinder Singh Dhillion" aka GSD

Believe in fairy's if you have too, but never in this buffon Baba!!!

[manjit]

Hi Spence,

I am not Manoj - just a FYR more bulldozing of truth for you.

Also, your reply whilst seemingly very flowery and poetic, isn't really saying much in regards to your apparent duplicitousness.

On multiple occasions you have stated here that Sri Brian Ji is a bulldozer of the truth who will educate everyone of the Truth, regardless of if they are ready for it or not.

Yet recently you have done nothing but contradict and challenge Brian's so-called Truth.

This suggests you are a very confused and conflicted fellow, just so you're aware, and flowery writing about succumbing, now, to God's will and Truth seems entirely at odds with your previous claim that we must all succumb to Sri Brian's alleged Truths (or, as I call it, entirely predictable ideology and dogma).

Just a FYI.

PS - re your more recent bit of sycophany, where you wrote to Sri Maharaj Huzur Brian Bulldozer of Truth Ji, "This comes from a basic respect for Truth as always a possibility outside our current thinking. And it shines through in your and Brian Ji's comments."

This shines through Brian's (and AR's) comments? Really? If that is so, then really I do not believe there is anybody, ever, who doesn't have "a basic respect for Truth as always a possibility outside our current thinking", because mere appearances would dictate that they are emphasising repeatedly and ad nauseam that they proclaim the Truth and that it remains squarely within the remit and boundaries of their "current thinking", so much so that that is the entire point of their arguments here (ie., spreading their exceptionally limited and limiting ideological dogma).

If these dogmatists and ideologues are open to truths outside their current thinking, which dogmatists and ideologues aren't?

[Appreciative Reader]

"If these dogmatists and ideologues are open to truths outside their current thinking"

-------

manjit, you specifically mentioned me, along with Brian, in terms of the portion of your comment I've quoted above, so perhaps you might want to listen to my perspective on this.

Speaking for myself (and I believe Brian as well --- but I mustn't presume to speak for him, he can do that himself if he wishes to), certainly I'm open to truths outside my current experience and understanding. In fact, in specific instances which pique my interest, I go out of my way to actually seek out such, as you might recall from our past discussions. However, my "openness" does not extend to actually accepting as truth, and to actually incorporating within my worldview, such things as I do not find rational and or in keeping with a scientific worldview. That is because I believe it is a scientific worldview that is best equipped to approach the world as it is, rather than as we conceive it.

I don't see how that translates to dogmatism, unless you look on adherence to rationalism and a scientific temper as dogmatism. (I personally do not think there is any reason why spirituality cannot admit of understanding in terms of rationality and a scientific temper, provided one is open to considering these subjects and also open to the actual experiences that spirituality apparently sometimes entails; and indeed, my past discussions with you lead me to think that you are yourself not opposed to such an essentially reasonable approach towards spirituality; but of course, I mustn't presume to speak for you either, any more than I must presume to speak for Brian.)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Manjit!

Good work!
Re my own development, I'm a work in progress, so stay current with the updates, please.

Black is the new white. :)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi again Manjit
You wrote
"If these dogmatists and ideologues are open to truths outside their current thinking, which dogmatists and ideologues aren't?"

It depends on how irritated they get. And possibly the day of the week.

Not irritated, loving and broad minded.

Irritated, less so.

I think that's the lot of us, though.