I don't want to be an atheist

[ProfessorDavey]

You've the advantage of me there, then, since in the context of gods I can't even see how the concept of possibility applies, personally. Possibility has to be grounded in something concrete - something, however minuscule, that we already know - to make any sense.

For example, I can have a pretty well informed conversation about the possibility of life on other planets because both terms in the discussion - life and other planets - have some substance. I know what it would mean to discover life on a different planet based on my pre-existing knowledge of and familiarity with life on this one. This is completely unlike the situation with gods - I've never encountered one and have absolutely no knowledge of any (not least because those who purport to believe in such things are notoriously poor at defining them concretely), so that when I'm asked if I'm open to the possibility of gods the standard response from me is that the concept of possibility doesn't even apply. What is it that I'm supposed to think possible, exactly?

Yes, this pretty much sums up my position as well. If the definitions we get given of god are either in my view logically contradictory or meaningless then the concept of possibility cannot be appllied any more than the possibility of jupremangandi existing.

A god if it exists doesn't necessarily need to accord with the (pretty clearly manmade) imaginings we currently see from theists. So I remain of the mind that the possibility still remains. But I'm not going to spend my life worrying about this. While there is no evidence I'll continue not to believe in the existence of god or gods. If something happens that provides that evidence in my lifetime, then so be it, I'll deal with that then. But I'm not going to start changing my life or my beliefs in the meantime.

[Nearly Sane]

A god if it exists doesn't necessarily need to accord with the (pretty clearly manmade) imaginings we currently see from theists. So I remain of the mind that the possibility still remains. But I'm not going to spend my life worrying about this. While there is no evidence I'll continue not to believe in the existence of god or gods. If something happens that provides that evidence in my lifetime, then so be it, I'll deal with that then. But I'm not going to start changing my life or my beliefs in the meantime.

How can it be a possibility if you don't even know what it is? If there is no meaningful definition then, applying the concept of possibility is meaningless.

[ProfessorDavey]

You've the advantage of me there, then, since in the context of gods I can't even see how the concept of possibility applies, personally. Possibility has to be grounded in something concrete - something, however minuscule, that we already know - to make any sense.

For example, I can have a pretty well informed conversation about the possibility of life on other planets because both terms in the discussion - life and other planets - have some substance. I know what it would mean to discover life on a different planet based on my pre-existing knowledge of and familiarity with life on this one. This is completely unlike the situation with gods - I've never encountered one and have absolutely no knowledge of any (not least because those who purport to believe in such things are notoriously poor at defining them concretely), so that when I'm asked if I'm open to the possibility of gods the standard response from me is that the concept of possibility doesn't even apply. What is it that I'm supposed to think possible, exactly?

Yes, this pretty much sums up my position as well. If the definitions we get given of god are either in my view logically contradictory or meaningless then the concept of possibility cannot be appllied any more than the possibility of jupremangandi existing.

A god if it exists doesn't necessarily need to accord with the (pretty clearly manmade) imaginings we currently see from theists. So I remain of the mind that the possibility still remains. But I'm not going to spend my life worrying about this. While there is no evidence I'll continue not to believe in the existence of god or gods. If something happens that provides that evidence in my lifetime, then so be it, I'll deal with that then. But I'm not going to start changing my life or my beliefs in the meantime.

Thinking about it a little more, perhaps my view is due to the fact that I am a scientist.

As a scientist I use evidence to derive theories, which provide the best model to explain the evidence. But I am always open to the possibility that the current theory could be disproved by the appearance of new evidence in the future. While it might be very unlikely for the most well evidenced theories that possibility remains and as a scientist you must always be open to that possibility.

So currently there is no evidence to support a view that god or gods exists. Therefore that view or belief is rejected. But however unlikely, you shouldn't discount the possibility of being wrong and that new evidence might arise that turns you view on its head. But note that this requires evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

]Thinking about it a little more, perhaps my view is due to the fact that I am a scientist.

As a scientist I use evidence to derive theories, which provide the best model to explain the evidence. But I am always open to the possibility that the current theory could be disproved by the appearance of new evidence in the future. While it might be very unlikely for the most well evidenced theories that possibility remains and as a scientist you must always be open to that possibility.

So currently there is no evidence to support a view that god or gods exists. Therefore that view or belief is rejected. But however unlikely, you shouldn't discount the possibility of being wrong and that new evidence might arise that turns you view on its head. But note that this requires evidence.

But without any form of meaningful definition one cannot even be wrong. If someone asked you as a scientist could there be a four sided triangle, you would simply state that it is definitionally unsound. If all the definitions of a god add up to nothing sensible then definitionally applying possibility is impossible.

[Shaker]

But without any form of meaningful definition one cannot even be wrong.

Pauli's famous quote is something that I almost put into my earlier post - it was very much in mind.

[Nearly Sane]

Pauli's famous quote is something that I almost put into my earlier post - it was very much in mind.

This relates to my issue with the prayer experiments which I was having with Outrider and bluehillside lats week. The use of terms are so badly defined that applying the concepts of science to them or respondingto the question of possibility of such things seems logically incoherent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's no reason why they should, Ippy. But there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers in'.

 "there is a world of difference between 'followers of' and 'believers", yes and I've often noticed that on this forum usually where someone is on a looser and the only way out, as they try, is to try splitting hairs on the semantics, now where have I seen that most recently? 

ippy

It's a huge difference: followers of Christian ethics don't necessarily believe that Jesus walked on water or that God is real, but they do (probably) believe that you should 'love thy neighbour'.

That's a massive difference.

O.

I think you are trivialising and twisting what Christians are saying.
To love one's neighbour properly one has to deal or more to the point get the mote in one's eye dealt with.

[Shaker]

This relates to my issue with the prayer experiments which I was having with Outrider and bluehillside lats week. The use of terms are so badly defined that applying the concepts of science to them or respondingto the question of possibility of such things seems logically incoherent.

Ah, now then - I disagree with you on this particular issue. I didn't contribute to the aforementioned discussion but I did read it carefully and with great interest, and there sided with Outrider insofar since (if I understood him aright), whereas trying to define a supernatural agency at whom petitionary prayers are directed may well be a non-starter, such petitionary prayers could have detectable, testable results in the end user (so to speak). Those results aren't seen, or to be precise are absolutely indistinguishable in every way from random, God-free events (interestingly, something that Alan Burns surprisingly admitted to a few days ago - who'd a thunk it), so the hypothesis of petitionary prayer can be considered falsified.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem is petitionary prayer is not a hypothesis in any scientific sense. The claim is nonsensical and using science on meaningless.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem is petitionary prayer is not a hypothesis in any scientific sense. The claim is nonsensical and using science on meaningless.

Not sure that is actually true - I think you may be confusing phenomenon with mechanism and both are of course subject to reasonable hypothesis based investigation.

So on phenomenon it is perfectly reasonable to frame a hypothesis that being the subject of petitionary prayer affects clinical outcome (for example). This makes no inference on mechanism involved if an effect is demonstrated. So for example a patient who knows they are being prayed for may experience psychological effects (positive or negative) that affect their clinical outcome.

And you may want to investigate mechanism (as far as is possible) - so an obvious way is to have two prayed for groups, one that is aware they are being prayed for, the other not. If the mechanism is purely psychological there is a requirement that the patient is aware of the prayer for the effect to be seen. So by seeing whether there is an effect when someone is prayed for but this vanishes when they are unaware tells us something about the mechanism of action.

[Nearly Sane]

Science is methodologically naturalistic. So any inference about a non natural cause makes it scientifically meaningless. The prayer,the thing supposedly investigated, is not being stated as a cause in the sense science works. It is simply piling bad science on bad philosophy to carry out the experiments.

[ProfessorDavey]

Science is methodologically naturalistic. So any inference about a non natural cause makes it scientifically meaningless. The prayer,the thing supposedly investigated, is not being stated as a cause in the sense science works. It is simply piling bad science on bad philosophy to carry out the experiments.

I'm not sure I agree. Science is very good at debunking woo - either by proving that it doesn't work or through carefully designed experiments proving that is doesn't work via supernatural mechanisms.

The experiments on prayer are pretty good in this respect - typically showing that prayer only works of the person being prayed for is aware, therefore disproving the notion of intervention by a supernatural power where the notion of whether the prayed for person knows or doesn't know is irrelevant.

So in a way this demonstrates that there is an effect but it is a placebo effect via psychological triggers.

[Nearly Sane]

They are well designed experiments if one assumes a naturalistic cause, and you cannot not when doing science. The only results you can get from science is something that is either in line with a hypothesis or not. The petitionary prayer claims are not scientific ones. All woo claims are meaningless scientifically since they are positing mechanisms which it doesn't investigate.

[ProfessorDavey]

They are well designed experiments if one assumes a naturalistic cause, and you cannot not when doing science. The only results you can get from science is something that is either in line with a hypothesis or not. The petitionary prayer claims are not scientific ones. All woo claims are meaningless scientifically since they are positing mechanisms which it doesn't investigate.

But it doesn't matter if science proves that it doesn't work.

All sorts of things we now understand through science were once the subject of claims of supernatural woo, from earthquakes to reproduction. In these cases science via experimentation has provided an explanation that it robust and does not require supernaturalistic woo explanations.

[Nearly Sane]

It cannot disprove woo claims as they are unfalsifiable in its terms. Woo claims are not based on cause and effect as science works.

[Nearly Sane]

Note just to underline, this is not a point about woo being possibly true but rather that phrasing Woo in scientific terms by any Woo merchant is essentially positing a meaningless statement when it comes to science
 The challenge to Woo merchants is how could any statement they make be given any validation since it ignores the method of science or in seeking to use its method of cause and effect makes an entirely meaningless statement.

[ProfessorDavey]

It cannot disprove woo claims as they are unfalsifiable in its terms. Woo claims are not based on cause and effect as science works.

But all of the woo claims are based on effects that are naturalistic (faith healing, power of prayer, divining, earthquakes due to gods being angered etc etc), so it is pretty easy to demonstrate no effect, e.g. on prayer without knowledge etc. And if there is no effect then on the naturalistic it is demonstration of falsifiability. So if someone claims that a person with a heart defect can be cured by prayer that is pretty easy to demonstrate to be untrue through scientific falsifiable hypotheses. You pray (without knowledge) nothing happens when compared to a control group. Sure the faithful won't accept or believe it but that doesn't mean that the claim has not been demonstrated to be false.

[Nearly Sane]

That the woo pushers might phrase their claims in scientific terms of cause and effect does not change that it is incorrectly done. Any naturalistic method necessitates an approach that assumes naturalism. That the other side not only do not provide a method and misunderstand the method on offer does not mean that abusing the method we have makes any sort of philosophical sense.

[ProfessorDavey]

That the woo pushers might phrase their claims in scientific terms of cause and effect does not change that it is incorrectly done. Any naturalistic method necessitates an approach that assumes naturalism. That the other side not only do not provide a method and misunderstand the method on offer does not mean that abusing the method we have makes any sort of philosophical sense.

But most of the claims of supernatural woo involve a naturalistic effect. They are not entirely based within the supernatural sphere. Prayer being a good example - the act of praying is naturalistically physical, the purported effect is also usually naturalistic - e.g. someone experiences relief from illness or symptoms thereof. So in the first place it is possible to prove in a scientific manner whether the initial naturalistic action (prayer) is associated with an alteration in the naturalistic effect. If there is no such link then the notion of whether there is a supernatural link between 'cause and effect' falls at the first hurdle because there is no association between the two.

[Jack Knave]

Dear Prof,

Except to the possibility that there is a God, but then atheists only dismiss man's interpretation of God, our feeble attempts to try and imagine the unimaginable.

Gonnagle.

But if there was a God other than man's interpretation then where is It?

The only other option to man's interpretation of God is a personal experience of the deity but by that very nature we could not find any common ground to share that experience unless God presents Itself to us all at the same time. And as we die and another generation comes into being God would have to essential live with us constantly. I don't see this, so God doesn't exist.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I get the whole natural effect claim. That is why it is atrocious philosophy and why science which follows a methodology that assumes a natural cause won't work here. The issue is that the claim of a natural effect from a supernatural cause is incoherent.

[Jack Knave]

You've the advantage of me there, then, since in the context of gods I can't even see how the concept of possibility applies, personally. Possibility has to be grounded in something concrete - something, however minuscule, that we already know - to make any sense.

For example, I can have a pretty well informed conversation about the possibility of life on other planets because both terms in the discussion - life and other planets - have some substance. I know what it would mean to discover life on a different planet based on my pre-existing knowledge of and familiarity with life on this one. This is completely unlike the situation with gods - I've never encountered one and have absolutely no knowledge of any (not least because those who purport to believe in such things are notoriously poor at defining them concretely), so that when I'm asked if I'm open to the possibility of gods the standard response from me is that the concept of possibility doesn't even apply. What is it that I'm supposed to think possible, exactly?

Yes, this pretty much sums up my position as well. If the definitions we get given of god are either in my view logically contradictory or meaningless then the concept of possibility cannot be appllied any more than the possibility of jupremangandi existing.

A god if it exists doesn't necessarily need to accord with the (pretty clearly manmade) imaginings we currently see from theists. So I remain of the mind that the possibility still remains. But I'm not going to spend my life worrying about this. While there is no evidence I'll continue not to believe in the existence of god or gods. If something happens that provides that evidence in my lifetime, then so be it, I'll deal with that then. But I'm not going to start changing my life or my beliefs in the meantime.

But if you don't know what a God 'looks like' how will you collect that evidence?

[Jack Knave]

Science is methodologically naturalistic. So any inference about a non natural cause makes it scientifically meaningless. The prayer,the thing supposedly investigated, is not being stated as a cause in the sense science works. It is simply piling bad science on bad philosophy to carry out the experiments.

I'm not sure I agree. Science is very good at debunking woo - either by proving that it doesn't work or through carefully designed experiments proving that is doesn't work via supernatural mechanisms.

The experiments on prayer are pretty good in this respect - typically showing that prayer only works of the person being prayed for is aware, therefore disproving the notion of intervention by a supernatural power where the notion of whether the prayed for person knows or doesn't know is irrelevant.

So in a way this demonstrates that there is an effect but it is a placebo effect via psychological triggers.

This is almost laughable because all you have shown is that the placebo effect is a phenomenon. It has not touched the prayer issue at all, and it can't because science has no inkling about what prayer is, as a healing mechanism. If you don't have an hypothesis about prayer i.e. some idea of what could be going on, then what is there to work with?

[ProfessorDavey]

Science is methodologically naturalistic. So any inference about a non natural cause makes it scientifically meaningless. The prayer,the thing supposedly investigated, is not being stated as a cause in the sense science works. It is simply piling bad science on bad philosophy to carry out the experiments.

I'm not sure I agree. Science is very good at debunking woo - either by proving that it doesn't work or through carefully designed experiments proving that is doesn't work via supernatural mechanisms.

The experiments on prayer are pretty good in this respect - typically showing that prayer only works of the person being prayed for is aware, therefore disproving the notion of intervention by a supernatural power where the notion of whether the prayed for person knows or doesn't know is irrelevant.

So in a way this demonstrates that there is an effect but it is a placebo effect via psychological triggers.

This is almost laughable because all you have shown is that the placebo effect is a phenomenon. It has not touched the prayer issue at all, and it can't because science has no inkling about what prayer is, as a healing mechanism. If you don't have an hypothesis about prayer i.e. some idea of what could be going on, then what is there to work with?

But if the notion of prayer only works under placebo effect conditions (i.e. only when the prayed for person knows) then that demonstrates it cannot be via the mechanism claimed by believers as they think that the prayed for person only needs the intervention of god, not the knowledge of that intervention.

[jeremyp]

Except to the possibility that there is a God, but then atheists only dismiss man's interpretation of God, our feeble attempts to try and imagine the unimaginable.

My mind is open to the possibility that there is a god. The problem is only that the evidence is lacking.