I don’t see how one can reasonably refute ECREE. The claim that there are large cockroaches in my garage should not require the same standard of evidence as the claim that there is a unicorn in my garage.
If one decides to abandon reason . . . then maybe debating such a person is a futile exercise to begin with?
Yet sometimes I wonder.
Quantum mechanics shows us how truly strange and bizarre the Universe seems to be on a small scale, and many of the claims made by physicists who study QM are strange, bizarre, and counter-intuitive.
On the surface, claims like a cat in a sealed box that is neither alive nor dead seems about as strange as the claim that a unicorn exists in my garage.
So, I guess that it may be possible that a logician, mathematician, or philosopher may–someday–come up with a valid argument about why ECREE might not apply in all situations.
I’m open-minded . . . but not so open-minded that my brains fall out.
So firstly you seem to have ignored my point, about you basing a belief on something you assert is “unverifiable”? However I already answered this question in my post? Assuming this is directed at me, you might want to use the quote function, and or the reply icon.
Here
The methodology of science is designed to remove as much subjective bias as possible, it sets a very high standard (when properly applied), now why and to what end would one set a lower standard to critically examine claims? As you’re suggesting one should do in your opening post, and for clams you asserted were unverifiable of course?
Consider them how, and for what?
Why not just tell us which deity you believe exists and why? I can tell you right now, my threshold for credulity, broadly speaking, is that any claim be supported by sufficient, and sufficiently objective evidence. I know of no objective evidence that demonstrates any deity or deities, or anything supernatural exists, or is even possible.
So this then is your first hurdle in convincing me that any such claim is true. Any attempt to reverse the burden of proof will fail, as my atheism is not itself a claim or belief about any deity or deities.
Bingo, it implies either that it unfalsifiable, or that it provides no data to examine, or both of course.
Exactly so, if philosophy were a better method than science for understanding reality, then we would never have created the scientific method, why would we need it?
Whilst I’d agree, they both would need to meet a minimum standard, they are different claims prima facie, as one of them is demonstrably possible, whereas we have no evidence the other is.
I agree, and If there is a more maligned or misused phrase by religious apologists, than open minded, I don’t know what it is. It simply means one treats all ideas and claims the same, without favour or prejudice, especially ideas that challenge existing beliefs and idea. It very neatly and accurately defines the scientific method of course.
As an example, Aristotle decided–from nothing more than philosophical arguments–that heavy weights fall faster than lighter weights, and that men have more teeth than women.
His arguments were brilliant . . . but still wrong. He never would have asked people to open their mouths so that he could count their teeth, because resorting to an examination of the physical world would be like cheating.
In his mind, the nature of the entire Universe could be deduced by thought alone . . . and again, he was wrong, and his thinking held back intellectual progress in the Western world for many hundreds of years.
Ironically, Gallileo defeated Aristotle on his own turf.
Gallileo asked what would happen if a heavy weight and a light weight were attached by a long, thin cord and dropped.
Would the combination fall faster than either weight by itself? Or would the lighter weight slow the fall of the heavy weight like a parachute?
The ony way to find out is to run an experiment, which Gallileo did by dropping weights off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and found that all weights drop at the same speed.
This is exactly the point, evidence gathering, objective and rigorous testing and experimentation, and conceiving of ways to rigorously falsify ideas simply works, and along with all the other ways of verification makes science the most reliable method we have for objectively understanding reality.
So when it either doesn’t support beliefs that people are emotionally invested in, or even falsifies them, we see this sort of desperate bargaining in the form of poorly reasoned rationalisations.
For example the claim that “just because science can’t evidence a deity, does not mean no deity exists”, and while this is true, it would be just as true for mermaids, unicorns, garden fairies et al. It may not demonstrate they don’t exist, but then that’s not my criteria for disbelief, which is an absence of sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence. Now if that is not @Druso’s criteria for disbelief, then what is, one wonders? This might help us move things along, along with his reason for believing a deity exists or is possible, as I asked already, which deity does he believe exists, and why?
Two very different things here.
a. Otherwise known as the processing of information pre-consciously
b. Otherwise known as testing
Otherwise known as folklore
Otherwise known as information derived from experimentation
I’m not sure you understand the difference between knowledge and belief. I think you’re going to attempt to put them on equal footing. I suspect you will argue that your belief in your god (you know it exists because you have experienced it) is exactly the same as trusting the results of vigorous testing of a hypothesis. Perhaps you think you have the exact argument necessary to convert those silly atheists.
If this is the case then - spoiler alert - chances are, you won’t succeed.
This why science is a superior method, as it doesn’t matter if a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jew does the testing, the result must always be the same, unlike religions of course, who use the same subjective methodology and arrive at very different conclusions.
As you say, knowledge can be objectively examined for veracity, unlike purely personal experience of course. Which is the very definition of subjective.
Scientific skepticism is essential for questioning dogmas, validating hypotheses, and avoiding hasty conclusions. It promotes intellectual humility, recognizing the limits of knowledge and the need for evidence. For atheists, who often reject unproven supernatural explanations, this rigor is crucial. However, science does not answer all human questions, such as the meaning of life, subjective ethics, or aesthetics.
Is there a meaning of life? Isn’t the meaning of life just what you are assigning to it? Wouldn’t it better be described as a meaning of life, as in one of may possible meanings?
A true scientific skeptic does not assert that “God does not exist” as an absolute truth, for that would require empirical evidence that, by definition, is not available for transcendent entities.
And I don’t know where theists get the idea that most of us do. It’s an argument I’ve never made or tried to defend.
Although it is true that if you think it’s highly unlikely any god exists, you will function in practical terms just as if you made a positive claim that none exist, still – the problem with theism is its utter lack of convincing evidence; the have zilch with which to inform the question.
So you don’t want to debate at all then, just proselytise your beliefs, using irrational arguments, then use vapid evasion when these are pointed out. I have not claimed, or even implied, to be certain about anything, so your quote (from a famous atheist) has no relevance I can see. You’re the one making a claim for an extant deity, the burden of proof is yours, I am simply dubious and disbelieving.
I have not asserted that at all, ever, with or without certainty. So this one is called a straw man fallacy.
Existence is defined as being alive or part of objective reality, you seem to be placing the deity you imagine to be real outside of this definition.
existence
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Care to explain why you believe something exists, and simultaneously define it in a way that negates this?
Ah, there is so much to unpack here, with respect to this. Start cooking your Sunday roast, it may be finished when you reach the end of this.
Let’s start with the contrast between the diligence exerted by those of us who paid attention in class, and the indolence all too frequently encountered here among mythology fanboys. There is, of course, a reason for the latter, namely, that they were raised in an environment where the learning process consisted of “sit down, shut up, listen to what the pastor is saying, and treat it as fact”. Which is basically what happens during sermonising. At no point in the religious indoctrination business, are the mythology fanboys ever expected to question what they are told, and indeed, being too inquisitive is presented as a “sin”, right at the start of their favourite Bronze Age mythology.
So, as a corollary of being raised in the above environment, when their pastor begins trotting out the usual malicious stereotypes about “atheists”, none of the mythology fanboys question any of this. Instead, they simply regard anyone they learn of as being an atheist, as conforming to said malicious stereotypes. They certainly never consider the possibility that atheists are as individual as any other human beings, but duplicitous homogenisation has been a part of religious indoctrination, ever since the first charlatan in human history persuaded those around him, to believe what he told them about fantastic magic entities. Which, history teaches us, usually involved a heavy agenda of control for personal gain.
Those of us who were fortunate enough not to endure this process during childhood, who instead were given the gift of a proper education, and had the good sense to pay attention to said education, learned an entirely different process. Namely, we were subject to a pedagogical system that presented facts and concepts to learn, but then encouraged us in addition to find out for ourselves, that said facts and concepts were genuine, and provided us, step by step, with the cognitive tools required to do just this.
Indeed, in the past, I provided here an exposition on why a work bearing the title The Children’s Encyclopaedia, edited by one Arthur Mee, failed in its mission to turn me into a good little English follower of God, King And Country™, that is relevant here. The post in question being this one. I’ll provide the relevant quote therefrom, that should be informative at this juncture:
So, as a result of being taught the basic concept of intellectual diligence, and being introduced to a broad spectrum of ideas, of a sort that many mythology fanboys don’t even know exist, we’re equipped to take a proper approach to questions - and, for that matter, assertions, a topic that the regulars here know that I’ve devoted many column inches to here. I won’t repeat that exposition at this juncture - the curious can find my various posts on the matter with ease.
But, what I will do, as an example of the approach taken here by the people who paid attention in class, is note that I am on public record in numerous locations, as not asserting that a god type entity in the most general sense does not exist. Those locations include this forum, where, wait for it, I have expounded on this matter on no less than ten occasions, and they’re merely the ones I could find in a quick perusal of my past activity. The posts in question being:
Post #1 (which also includes one of my expositions on the proper treatment of assertions)
Post #4 (which includes a link to my exposition on how recent developments in cosmological physics impacts the whole “god question”)
Post #5 (this one is a multi part exposition on various relevant topics)
Post #6 (another multi part exposition, including demolition of mythology fanboy canards about atheism)
Post #7 (more mythology fanboy canards dealt with in addition)
Post #8 (yet more mythology fanboy canards dealt with in addition)
Post #9 (and even more tiresome mythology fanboy canards dealt with in addition)
Post #10 (along with another exposition on the impact of cosmological physics upon the “god question”).
Now, from the first of those posts, I provide the following quote (which is pretty much repeated in all the others), viz:
I think this should settle the matter in my case, don’t you? You will find that numerous other regulars here adopt a parallel stance.
However, one issue on which we can be certain, is that entities asserted to possess contradictory or absurd properties, can be safely dismissed without further ado. I almost certainly address this matter in some detail in one of the above posts. This issue has lethal import for mythology fanboys, because the numerous mythologies humans have invented, all contain within their pages, assertions about the existence of fantastic magic entities. Said fantastic magic entities are all asserted to possess contradictory or absurd properties, and therefore, all of them can be safely dismissed. You’ll find this covered in Post #1 above (and probably at least one of the others).
This does not, as I’ve explained before (almost certainly in at least one of the above posts), rule out a candidate for the “god role” that [1] does not originate from a mythology, and [2] is either consonant with known physics, or provides consistent extensions thereto. Before you complain about [2], bear in mind that we have ZERO evidence for magic, and can therefore rule that out, noting along the way that the term “supernatural” is merely a fancy way of saying “magic”, in a manner that its proponents hope no one notices.
But, as again noted in Post #1 above, even a sensible candidate for the “god role”, as opposed to the cartoon magic men regarded as being real by various mythology fanboys, only enters the picture the moment we have evidence for the existence of said entity. Until said evidence arrives, we may safely operate as if said entity does not exist, just as humans safely operated as if entities such as electrons didn’t exist, until evidence told us otherwise.
I have also expounded in detail (it should not surprise you by now), on what would happen if evidence for a genuinely existing god type entity was presented in the very near future. Again, Post #1 from the above list covers this matter, and I suspect others in the list do also. I’ll let you find out for yourself by perusing the links (the regulars will see what I did there).
By the time you reach this paragraph, you should have been made abundantly aware, that much diligence has been devoted to the relevant questions, and others here can probably, if they’re willing to spend the time, providing examples from their own oeuvres. In my case, I also maintain an extensive offline database of my writing, so that I can cross-reference quickly when required, not least because, as I stated in my opening gambit, mythology fanboys have a habit of being indolent, and failing to check if their opening posts are covering ground that has been repeatedly trodden upon here often.
Indeed, one of the recurrent themes here, is the manner in which ill-informed, complacent and manifestly naive mythology fanboys, announce their presence on the forum, with a wall of text post, which they consider to be some sort of discoursive killer drone strike for their particular brand of mythology fanboyism. Only to discover to their shock and dismay, that we’ve seen their drivel before upon multiple occasions, and can unleash the canard demolitions in an instant. The manner in which low-IQ American Christians in particular come here, bringing peashooters to a nuclear war, is sardonically amusing at times.
If the tone of the above strikes you as harsh, it’s the product of bitter experience over 15 years. In particular, experience dealing with that mendacious and frequently wilfully ignorant subset of mythology fanboys, the small army of propagandists for American corporate creationism. Whom I regard with freely admitted scorn and derision, not least because of the manner in which they manifestly regard a full blown Commandment from their god, prohibiting lying, as discardable whenever this suits their sleazy apologetic convenience. This should inform you of the background leading to my launching into Haldane Mode frequently here.
And thus ends another of my editorial pieces. Which are savoured with relish by those here with a very particular sense of humour.
