Re: The thing about ID...


"Charles" <charles.shelton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1131137420.316548.156670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>> "Charles" <charles.shelton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1131114658.352501.39580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <snip>
>
>> >
>> > Here's where I see a problem with your argument:
>> >
>> > There is a difference between personal beliefs and scientific
>> > conclusions. Some personal beliefs (e.g. the existense of God) are not
>> > testable and cannot be studied by science. Why is it dishonest,
>> > illogical, or irrational to do science and make scientific conclusions
>> > while still holding some personal beliefs that are not covered by
>> > science? Why do you assert that these personal beliefs put a "logical
>> > burden" on the scientist?
>>
>> Because the scientist accepts his beliefs as true.
>>
>> Thus, if he willfully dismisses his beliefs concerning a god when they
>> are
>> inconvenient to his work, he is doing something he believes is false.
>
> How has the belief been dismissed, and how is it inconvenient to the
> work?

It is dismissed because its possible influence is not mentioned in the
scientific paper. It is inconvenient because it renders science itself void.

> Most people believe that God is all-powerful, but that he
> doesn't act arbitrarily.

What most people believe is irrelevant to the scientific method. Science
does not operate via vote or promise.

> The results of science are completely
> consistent with this belief. Sure, God *could* act arbitrarily, but so
> far, to the best of our collective knowledge, He hasn't and it doesn't
> seem like He plans to.

That's irrelevant. Given the belief in a god, the possibility that all
evidence and observation has been altered is present. One cannot test to see
if any given observation or experiment has been subject to divine
intervention, so all evidence must be held as contaminated and invalid.

That's what the presence of the supernatural does. It voids evidence.

> So why is this belief inconvenient, and why
> does it need to be dismissed?

Because it eliminates the validity of evidence.

> Science can be performed with the normal
> activities of observation and experimentation, with no reference to God
> or belief in God whatsoever.

Granted. But if one accepts as true that there exists a god that can
interact with the universe, one must view all evidence as invalid.

> That doesn't mean the practicing
> scientist *denies* his/her belief. It means that the belief doesn't
> contribute to the science one way or the other.

Then you are saying that what the scientist agrees is true does not
contribute to science.

I don't think you mean to say that.

>> > As I see it, science only requires that scientific conclusions can only
>> > be drawn from evidence consisting of observations and experimentations.
>> > If you rely on science to make predicitons, then you make the
>> > tentative assumption that the universe is consistent and that
>> > scientific knowledge is reliable. However, science presents no
>> > guarantee that tomorrow science will still work. Scientific knowledge
>> > is tentative.
>>
>> Granted.
>>
>> But if you accept *as true* that there *does exist* a being that can
>> undetectably alter evidence and observations at a whim at any moment, you
>> can't trust anything at all. If you believe such a thing, you've
>> completely
>> and utterly destroyed the validity of evidence and observation. You
>> cannot
>> do science in such an environment.
>
> That's demonstrably false, as many of the greatest scientists believed
> in God and managed to contribute to science just fine.

That is because they deliberately ignored what they accepted as true (god)
when they did their science.

It's crazy.

> There's also no
> evidence of them pretending God didn't exist to perform their
> experiments.

Did they mention in their work that the god could have interfered in all
their observations and altered all their evidence?

If not, then they are pretending it didn't exist.

> Belief that God exists does not mean you must believe
> that God will act arbitrarily.

Irrelevant. "It wouldn't do that" is not a valid experimental control.

> In fact if you believed science works
> and you believed in God you would probably believe that He doesn't act
> arbitrarily, for reasons He hasn't shared with us.

"I don't know why, but it wouldn't do that" is no better a control.

> Most people who
> believe in God trust Him not to change reality on a whim.

Again, "I trust him" is not a proper scientific control.

> How does
> this prevent anyone from doing science or trusting scientific
> conclusions?

Science does not operate on promises.

>> That is, unless you deny that belief that you accept as true when you do
>> science. That seems crazy.
>
> You might also believe that God acts through natural processes, so that
> when you discover those processes you're revealing God's actions.

But since you can't be sure any observation is not altered on the spot, you
can't arrive at that conclusion.

> This
> belief cannot be empirically tested or verified, but it doesn't
> contradict the evidence at all.

Please note that my argument is concerning belief in a supernatural being
that can interact with the universe. If it doesn't interact, then you're not
addressing my argument.

So if this god you've concocted for this example interacts with the
universe, the reason the evidence is not contradicted is because it is
already invalid.

> It's completely consistent with it, as
> is the belief that there is nothing behind those natural processes at
> all. Neither conclusion follows directly from the evidence, because
> both explanations explain the same data.

If the god belief is not present, then we can arrive at an explanation
congruent with the evidence. If the god belief is present, then the evidence
is invalid, and any and all explainations are as valid as any other.

We learn nothing.

>> > Science also doesn't deny the existence of God. Since by definition
>> > God is omnipotent, He could arbitrarily produce any outcome to an
>> > experiment.
>>
>> That alone, that point right there, spells the death of science. If you
>> believe that it is true that such a being actually exists, then if you
>> are
>> honest with yourself you must agree that you cannot trust your
>> observations
>> and experiments AT ALL. If you accept as true that such a being exists,
>> then
>> you cannot do science unless you somehow lie to yourself.
>
> See my point above. You can come to the conclusion that such a being
> has for whatever reasons decided not to act arbitrarily.

That's not science. That's guessing.

> Why is this
> deceitful to oneself?

Because you're treating a guess as a fact.

> Why can't science continue with this belief
> being held?

Because sans evidence, the tool of science has nothing to be applied to.

>> > There's no test we can perform and no prediction we can
>> > make to conclude that God does or does not exist. Thus, the question
>> > is outside of science. The best science can say is "don't know, and
>> > can't come up with a good test that would give evidence either way."
>>
>> No. The reason that god is outside of science, is that no evidence has
>> pointed in the direction of a god. If there's no evidence of something,
>> then
>> the tool of science cannot be applied to it.
>
> Evidence comes from observations and experiments. The problem isn't
> that no evidence exists, it's that there's no way to devise an
> experiment to get evidence either way.

You misunderstand.

Why posit the god in the first place. That has to somehow be justified
before one can decide to seek evidence.

> You can't have *any* evidence
> point to a god *unless* that god wants to be found. Since no evidence
> has been found, there are two possible conclusions: such a god doesn't
> exist, *or* that god is unwilling to provide evidence. Since *either*
> conclusion fits the available evidence, deciding which is more
> plausible is outside science. There's no evidence to distinguish the
> two conclusions. And no conceivable method available to obtain such
> evidence. *That's* why it's outside science.

It's outside science because there's no reason to posit a god in the first
place. Your search for the hiding god is invalid at the outset because you
have no reason to posit the god to begin with.

If we remove the unnecessary positing of a god, then there's only one
possible conclusion.

>> > Therefore, I submit that the belief that God doesn't exist is logically
>> > equivalent to the belief that God does exist and intervenes, from the
>> > point of view of science.
>>
>> Science has no view on that issue until evidence is forthcoming.
>
> So why do you say the scientist must not believe an all-powerful God
> exists in order to do science?

Because the belief destroys the validity of evidence.

>> > Both conclusions cannot be tested and rely
>> > on personal belief. Therefore they are outside of science. A
>> > demonstration:
>> >
>> > Take these conclusions:
>> > 1. God doesn't exist and never did.
>> > 2. God exists but doesn't intervene in the universe. He set it up and
>> > let it go.
>> > 3. God exists and intervenes rarely through miracles, but he doesn't
>> > leave any physical evidence to test believers.
>> > 4. God exists and intervenes rarely through miracles, but we haven't
>> > found the physical evidence yet.
>> > 5. God exists and intervenes all the time, but doesn't behave
>> > arbitrarily so the universe appears to follow rules.
>> > 6. God exists and intervenes all the time, and he is arbitrary, but he
>> > hasn't decided to be inconsistent yet. He's got a great prank on the
>> > universe ready to go for next Thursday.
>> > 7. Any conclusion about the existence/non-existence of God and his
>> > action/inaction are all consistent with physical evidence because God
>> > is by definition omnipotent. Since his behavior (or non-behavior)
>> > would be consistent with any outcome, we can't draw any scientific
>> > conclusions.
>>
>> My point has never been about the existence or non-existence of a god. It
>> is
>> about belief in a god, and how the logical ramifications of that belief
>> should destroy the very foundations of science if the believer is honest
>> with himself.
>
> But all of these conclusions are consistent with the available
> scientific evidence.

They all seem to be variations of "the god wouldn't do that" applied as a
scientific control. It's not.

If the belief is that the god can affect the universe, then all these
different claims about its consistency and motives are irrelevant. The god
is a rogue factor that renders all evidence invalid. Claims of consistency
are invalid as they are based on evidence that is itself invalid.

> A scientist could hold any of these beliefs
> without there being a contradiction with the evidence.
> He/she is only
> restricted from saying that 1-6 are scientific claims, because they
> don't follow directly from the evidence.

The argument is not about those claims being scientific or not, the very
possibility of a given observation being altered by divine intervention is
enough to eliminate the validity of all evidence.

> 7 is the only conclusion in
> the bounds of science, but all the conclusions fit the evidence.
> Holding any of these beliefs does not prevent science from being
> conducted as usual, as long as the beliefs are not used as scientific
> facts.

But beliefs are things that people accept as facts. That being the case, how
does one conduct science while ignoring what one accepts as a fact?

> There is no requirement that a scientist must account for
> his/her metaphysical beliefs when drawing scientific conclusions.

Question: If one believes something, does that mean one accepts it as a
fact?

>> > Which of these conclusions is "irrational, dishonest, or illogical?"
>> > If you say 2-6 but not 1, that's inconsistent.
>>
>> Granted.
>>
>> But why would one make claim #1?
>>
>> Allow me to present claim #0. "---"
>>
>> Claim number 0 makes no claim concerning gods because no evidence points
>> towards any. So claims 1 to 6 can be irrational dishonest and illogical,
>> but
>> claim 0 remains rational, honest, and logical.
>>
>> If the tool of science can be said to hold a position on gods, then claim
>> 0
>> is that position.
>
> Isn't claim 0 just restating my claim 7?

No. Because 0 is not a conclusion. It is the absence of an assumption.

> So are you saying that
> agnosticism is the only honest worldview for the scientist?

Unless you can provide an alternative that makes sense...

Currently, the situation seems to be that the scientist must ignore what he
considers to be a fact (god) when performing science.

>> > If 2-6 are invalid
>> > positions, 1 is just as invalid, because there's no scientific test we
>> > can perform to draw a conclusion about God. As long as a scientist
>> > holds that 7 is the only conclusion that science can assert, he/she is
>> > free to hold any of beliefs 1-6 and still be an honest, rational,
>> > logical scientist.
>>
>> That means the scientist must deny what he accepts as true.
>>
>> > He/she recognizes that the personal belief is
>> > outside science, and need not pretend that God doesn't exist to do
>> > science, nor add in a "God factor" when analyzing experiments.
>>
>> You use the phrase "personal belief" as a way to draw attention from the
>> fact that the personal belief is held to be true. Thus, to perform
>> science,
>> the believer must deny what he believes to be true.
>
> Do you not distinguish between beliefs held based on evidence and
> belief held based on faith?

Yes, one is rational and one is not. But they are both beliefs, and both are
held as facts by the believer.

> You do not have to deny any faith-based
> beliefs that do not contradict the evidence.

But evidence is invalid if one believes a god can alter it at will and
there's no way to check.

> As I've explained above,
> belief in an all-powerful God that just happens to choose not to reveal
> Himself fits all the scientific evidence just as well as the belief
> that God doesn't exist.

Granted. But if you believe in that god, then all evidence is rendered
invalid for you. You cannot draw any conclusions from it.

> Why is this dishonest or crazy?

Because the believing scientist DOES draw conclusions from evidence that he
should consider invalid.

> Why is the
> business of science hampered by any belief that can't be addressed by
> science anyway?

It isn't hampered because the believing scientists deliberately ignore what
they consider facts (god) and leave it out of their work, even though the
ramifications of that fact (god) render all evidence invalid

>> That's crazy.
>>
>> > The
>> > problem with your argument is that you present a false dichotomy.
>> > Science doesn't require that you believe 1,
>>
>> And I have never made that claim.
>>
>> > it requires that you don't
>> > claim your personal belief is a scientific conclusion.
>>
>> It requires that you don't hold as true, what you hold as true.
>
> See my point about evidence-based versus faith-based beliefs.

Irrelevant. Both are considered facts. Faith based ones even more so than
contingent evidence-based ones.

> Science
> is not about THE TRUTH.

Never said it was.

> It's about the best explanation that fits the
> data.

But if you believe in a god, then the data is invalid. Anything goes, at
that point.

> You're free to hold any other beliefs that don't contradict the
> data and can't be tested, as long as you don't claim that they're
> scientifically valid, or can be evaluated by science. Belief (or
> unbelief) in God doesn't contradict the observation that reality is
> consistent.

Yes it does. If you believe in a god, then you can't trust any observation,
even an observation of consistency.

The non-believer does not have to deal with such ramifications.

> See conclusions 1-6 above. They all fit the available
> evidence and there's no way to determine which is correct. Therefore
> any of these beliefs is consistent with science (Well, conclusion 6 may
> be refuted next Thursday).

And none of that is the issue.


--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@xxxxxx
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... definition of "science." ... things from several highly respected scientists. ... should be.* when wackos like you start making claims like "god exists" ... the evidence can be mine for the low low price of $200 ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... to be the *factually* inerrant word of God. ... "literal sense" scripture and common sense and science. ... be factual by supposition and not by evidence. ... as is the case with Dr. Miller. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: where theistic evolution leads
    ... > and god is certainly one such thing. ... > and all evidence indicates that evolution is undirected. ... terms isn't the end of the world nor the end of responsible science. ... of scientists that has been able to do that? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Richard Dawkins - yeah, whatever...*yawn*
    ... science to God as to the evolution of protein. ... and has found no evidence for him. ... Scientists usually only discuss lack of evidence when refuting a scientific ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
Loading