About Me
- Matt
- Just an average skeptic who likes to start an argument now and then. Way too much time spent on the Creation/Evolution debate.
Comment Policy
Fecalgrams
Site Feed
Links
Required Poo Viewing
Favorite Serial Poo
Blogs of Note
- A Blog Around The Clock
- Aardvarchaeology
- About Atheism
- Action Skeptics
- Adventures in Ethics and Science
- Aetiology
- Ahistoricality
- Allan's Perspective
- Amused Muse
- Aurora Walking Vacation
- Authentically Me
- Bad Astronomy Blog
- Banana Slug
- Bitch Ph.D.
- Black Cat
- Coffee House Poetry
- Dispatches from the Culture Wars
- Dubito Ergo Sum
- Endangered Ugly Things
- ERV
- Evolved and Rational
- Ferret's Cage
- Friendly Atheist
- Good Math, Bad Math
- Hurricane Jill
- I Speak of Dreams
- Jakobische Rants
- Jeff's Lunchbreak
- King Aardvark's Kick in the Nuts
- Majikthise
- Notional Slurry
- Pharyngula
- Politickybitch
- Rager's Rages
- Raging Rainbows
- Respectful Insolence
- Rev. BigDumbChimp
- Science Notes
- Shrimp and Grits
- Signs of Insanity
- Skeptico
- Slicing With Occam's Razor
- Sporadic Maunderings
- Terra Sigillata
- The Big Room
- The Bronze Blog
- The Greenbelt
- The Lancelet
- The Loom
- The Saga of Runolfr
- The Two Percent Company
- The Uncredible Hallq
- Thoughts in a Haystack
- Trousers to Grow Into
- U Dream of Janie
- Void of Course
- Waiter Rant
Currently Inactive
- 95% Of You Are Morons
- Beep! Beep! It's Me!
- Butch Bailey
- Church Burnin' Ebola Blog
- Confessions of an Anonymous Coward
- Cosmic Watercooler
- Evolgen
- Hot Dogs, Pretzels, and Perplexing Questions
- N@ked Under My Lab Coat
- Radiology Picture of the Day
- Randomness
- Redzilla Attacks!
- The Apprenticing Lab Rat
- The Big Picture
- The Church of the Everlasting Groove
- Thoughts from Too Far North
R.I.P.
Labels
- Alties (7)
- Announcements (107)
- Anthropology (16)
- Archaeology (4)
- Atheism (21)
- Blog Stuff (60)
- BPSDB (2)
- Bugs 'n Stuff (33)
- Carnivalia (51)
- Critical Thinking (53)
- Fecalgrams (7)
- Games (7)
- General Poo (162)
- Google Fun (29)
- Hovind (33)
- Humor (133)
- ID/Creationism (141)
- Idiots (149)
- Link Love (104)
- Music (11)
- My Life (178)
- News (62)
- Not Necessarily Work-Safe (31)
- Photos (46)
- Poetry (6)
- Poker (7)
- Politics (45)
- Quote Mining (7)
- Regurgipoo (1)
- Religion (98)
- Serial Poo (80)
- Shooting (6)
Free Website Counter
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
25 Package(s) of Returned Poo:
Well, apparently Amanda was right. Min isn't an idiot. /copious dripping sarcasm
I think the burden of proof rests on whomever is making a specific truth claim. So if you claim that the supernatural exists, your null hypothesis must be that it does not exist, and you look for evidence to the contrary. Er, good luck with that.
I think the claim that the supernatural does not exist would have to go case by case. So for any (supposedly) strong pieces of evidence in favor of its existence, an analysis showing that the observed outcome is not ridiculously unlikely without resorting to supernatural causes.
(Sorry; stats class is on hypothesis testing this week; carry on)
This is typical. George Nouri of Coast to Coast says he will believe anything unless it is proven to be false (I am considering sending him an email saying I manage the estate of a Nigerian prince....). A recent episode of "Wire in the Blood" on BBCAmerica (which I missed) dealt with some kind of voodoo-style magic, and one of the cops apparently got caught in a "spell", and the main guy says that it's all in her head (or something like it), and she responds by asking him if he had proof that magic wasn't real.
Just a couple of instances that show that type of thinking is sadly typical.
When will more poo be flung? The walls have been too long spatter-free.
He did say, "Correct me if I'm wrong..."
That shows that he's open to someone actually explaining why the burden of proof is on him.
And yes. I was right. Min is NOT an idiot.
Amanda, "correct me if I'm wrong" is often just a way to cover your ass. While I have no familiarity with what you're talking about (too lazy to read the link, though it probably contains information about it) I've seen idiots use it and then refuse to admit the correction was correct more than once.
Just read that thread, and yep.
Still an idiot.
(Sorry Mandy, but Min's brain is out to lunch.)
(still.)
Actually, according to wikipedia, the burden of proof's ordinary rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains.".
So, in this case, considering the context, the commenter that I responded to entered my blog's comment section making an assertion that must be proven, and cannot be accepted just because he said it was so.
But in the grander scheme, there's a burden of proof on both the theists and the atheists, for each is making a specific truth claim. (to quote galmea). The theist claims there is a God or gods, and uses documentary evidence and other tools to attempt to make his case. Whether or not you agree that he has made it is beside the point.
The atheist must also prove his positive assertion-- that there is absolutely no gods. And he uses evidence and other tools available to him to make his case as well. Again, beside the point if he has or it is persuasive.
So, in my understanding, the only people without a burden of proof are those that are agnostic-- and do not claim to know either way.
Hence my statement stands. There is a burden of proof-- both innate and in context-- on the commenter and that he cannot just state an opinion in the context he entered and expect it to be accepted as fact. However, I left out (hence my request to be corrected) the burden that exists (externally to context) for the theist to prove that there is a God/gods. Whether it was necessary given the context-- I guess I need to pay more attention to who's reading and how my comments will be used?
Thanks for helping me to focus.
It's probably worth pointing out that, for a certain world view, there can be no such thing as the supernatural. Why? Because if it exists, it is, by definition, part of the natural world. This would include gods (or God), spirits, angels, demons, whatever. If there is a god capable of making changes by fiat, than that possibility must be included as part of the definition of "natural occurrence".
This happens to be my take on it. I don't see much point in claiming that there are (or aren't) gods, djinns, etc. If there's evidence for them, fine (I haven't seen any). If not, why worry about them?
As Qalmlea pointed out, though, the null hypothesis in this case is that God does not exist. Until evidence independent of personal feelings or faith turns up, the null is the only rational place to be.
The problem that I have with your statements is the concept of there not being any evidence. One has to back up and ask the question of "what type of evidence?"
Methinks that you imply that some kind of scientific evidence must be proffered, but the problem with that is science is outside its bounds when it comes to the supernatural.
Now, I have two choices here (without diving into "feelings" or "faith"). I can either argue that you are in the same position with TENS, or I can argue that there is documentary evidence in support of the supernatural.
A taste of each?
How did something come from nothing-- I know the typical Creationist question, but it still has yet to be answered. Let alone the question of uniformity. Simply because evolution claims that things have "always been" as they are as far as the laws of physics, etc. that does not mean that they always will be that way. There's nothing inherent in TENS to specify why things should continue tomorrow to be as today.
And as for the other argument, we have abundant documentary and archaeological evidence in regards to the life and times of the Bible. Which is typically how you find out about people, who they are, what they've done, etc.
To repeat, there is evidence of the kind necessary to search out the answer to the question. Just not evidence of the variety you wish to accept. And there's a degree of faith necessary to believe in TENS.
Therefore, I contend that the burden of proof still goes to both, and avoids the agnostic.
Oh, one more thing. Why should the null hypothesis necessitate an atheistic position as opposed to the agnostic position.
NULL != 0. Any good programmer knows that. NULL simply means the absence of data, whereas 0 is concrete data.
In this case, NULL would mean the absence of data in regards to God (gods) = agnosticism. 0 would mean absolutely no God (gods) = atheism.
The aforementioned is the null state, the following is a positive assertion. This follows with what I've said, and contradicts qalmlea and IAMB.
Min, this explains why agnostic atheism is the null hypothesis.
You misunderstand what it is to be an atheist. Most of us do not make a claim to truth, we leave that to those who are deluded into believing fairy tales. It is a simple matter of not believing that for which there is no evidence. Your god is not the only thing we don't believe in and there are a lot of atheists who take issue with being called such for that very reason.
I don't believe in leprechauns, do I need to provide proof that they don't exist? Same thing for unicorns, mermaids, dragons (except for the kind from Komodo). I also don't believe in astrology, palm reading, psychics, etc. all for the same reason. No claims to truth in any of it. I don't know that these things do not exist, but until I am provided some substantial evidence that they do, I am going to assume that they do not. It is the only rational thing to do.
"Agnostic Atheism" is a new concept to me-- thanks for sharing.
I could certainly respect the choice of 0 for NULL if those that chose 0 would say they believed the answer to truly be NULL. Unfortunately, whole theories and beliefs are constructed on this arbitrary selection of a value.
For example, I'm part of a software team that aggregates customer data from multiple locations to a head office. Occasionally the exports that we get from the sites contains a NULL. We have a choice. We could report 0 so that our calculations would not break, but the chance that NULL = 0 for a field like Net Sales is close to 0 itself. However, there's no other logical value to use until we get data. Except-- report the NULL and let the user decide.
The problem with atheism (the agnostic kind or the garden variety) is not that they are reporting NULL, but they are actively arguing for 0. They have made a choice, and by making that assertion, they must prove why this is a reasonable assumption (again, back to the burden of proof) against why they should not select 1 or many-- for all must be rational in a system where NULL is the current value.
Directly applied to the original comment stream and "Expelled", simply because some scientists decide that NULL => 1 shouldn't be a problem for someone who believes that the value is truly NULL, but would only cause a problem for those that believe NULL = 0.
So, logically, either you really believe it's 0, or you truly don't know, and therefore should respect differing values for NULL.
Lastly, xiangtao, I think that you believe in Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and perhaps even Plato, but I would wonder what scientific evidence you have for the existence of any of these men. Certainly, there are historical records, but they fall under documentary evidence. You wouldn't use science to figure out if these people were around.
Now, if you had the remains, you could test DNA and find out if you were related to them-- but there's a whole industry set up around ancestry that would probably be a less costly route. Again, documentary evidence.
So... that's why I have a problem with the "no evidence" argument. "No convincing evidence" for some people, I could believe. But with the documents available, the argument for "no evidence" is an irrational one.
Min, I think that leprechauns and Abraham Lincoln are slightly different, the analogy is broken. I'm not surprised agnostic atheism is a new idea to you, since most people think of agnosticism as its own religion. But agnostic atheism is the null hypothesis, because it's both tentatively assumed and not a positive claim. It asks that the people making the positive claim prove it, and they will accept it if they do. The reason why god is the positive claim? Occam's Razor. Since the world can be explained without god, we should assume god does not exist as the null hypothesis.
I never said that "documentary evidence" is no good. It must be evaluated along with all other types of evidence.
If the only record of Abraham Lincoln we had was on specific collection of documents written well after he supposedly lived bu people trying to further an agenda, I wouldn't believe in him either. However, we have many documents written by him, we have contemporary sources writing about him. We have copious amounts of specific information about his life including the exact dates of his birth and death. We know where he lived and when.
Contrast that with Jesus. The only records of him were written at least forty years after he supposedly lived by people who worshipped him as a god. They were furthering their own agenda by doing so and were far from objective. We can't pinpoint an exact year for birth or death, much less a date. The things he allegedly did in his lifetime have no record outside of the Bible. All this in the midst of a society that had a hard on for writing things down.
If you can't see the difference in these two sets of documentary evidence, why one is reliable and the other not, there is no help for you.
As for arguing why null is the reasonable assumption, Richard Dawkins (among many others) has laid it out quite clearly.
Hmmm, where to start?
Minthegap: "Methinks that you imply that some kind of scientific evidence must be proffered, but the problem with that is science is outside its bounds when it comes to the supernatural."
Outside what bounds? Try to remember this, because it's a frequent mistake made by those who think science is some kind of special discipline with special rules: Science is only about finding out how things work. The only boundaries to science are assuring that you have established reasonable accuracy.
"The Supernatural" (cue spooky music) is a tautology in every case I've ever heard it used within. If you want to argue that the supernatural is outside the detection of "science" and all that hoohah, it is by definition outside the entire realm of human experience. Thus making it a useless argument - who really cares what exists on the outside of the universe? The argument is that the supernatural, on special occasions, intrudes into the realm of our perceptions. And if it does that, it becomes fair game to science. So, get off the fence - either your supernaturalism has some effect on your life (and can therefore be measured), or it does not and has no worth in any kind of debate.
Minthegap: "here's a burden of proof on both the theists and the atheists, for each is making a specific truth claim."
Um, no. You'll find that the hackneyed term, "Truth," is used almost exclusively by creationists, and in such uses, bears no resemblance to any definition offered in any dictionary. Truth is not faith and they are far from interchangeable.
Most serious scientists, atheists, and critical thinkers make no effort to use the word, because they know it's an abstract concept, like "Good."
Minthegap: "The atheist must also prove his positive assertion-- that there is absolutely no gods."
Since it is logically impossible to prove a negative, you're barking up the wrong tree here. But, I'll give you my stock answer for such assertions: Prove that there are no elephants in the room.
Well, that's pretty easy, isn't it? Nobody needs proof - it's kinda obvious. It's the lack of evidence to the contrary, isn't it?
And, in a nutshell, you have the prime atheist argument. There is no positive assertion of negativity (or null, if you like), there's only the complete lack of non-null. Call that what you like, but until you produce something that resembles a 1 or higher, you've got the stance of atheists.
And this is a key factor. Most atheists (and many non-atheists) actually don't give a rat's ass what you believe yourself. The issues arise from the (oh so frequent) attempts to claim that your supernatural exists, therefore all humans must follow such-and-such rules. This even goes so far as to try to establish that atheism is "evil," despite the obvious problem that such a definition requires a belief system that atheists find ludicrous. But, bluntly, until you show some evidence, you haven't a reason to make any claims.
Minthegap: "How did something come from nothing-- I know the typical Creationist question, but it still has yet to be answered."
I always love this one, because it seems to disappear the moment someone wants to apply it to the supernatural. Where did god come from? How come god all of a sudden doesn't require the logical argument you're offering? How come god can exist forever and ever but that's completely impossible for matter, energy, the laws of physics, and so on?
But the question itself is already assuming a conclusion; the real flaw is the assumption that everything must have a beginning and an end. The only thing that demonstrates this is the realm of our consciousness - in other words, we assume it because that's how we measure our "self." But life doesn't follow it - an individual springs from a collection of already living organisms. Objects don't spring into existence, they are formed from other objects. Even nuclear annihilation produces energy from matter. The concept of something from nothing is proposed only by religion, and it is the simple fact that it has never, ever been observed that establishes one of the arguments against religion.
So, uh, your argument in that regard kinda defeats your stance. If you'd bother to think about it instead of repeating it blindly, you might have realized that. And the same might actually go for your lame, "Nobody ever answers this one."
Minthegap: "Simply because evolution claims that things have "always been" as they are as far as the laws of physics, etc. that does not mean that they always will be that way. There's nothing inherent in TENS to specify why things should continue tomorrow to be as today."
Not sure what your point is here. Some god must exist because we don't know the future? Ha ha, take that, evolution!
So, I'm assuming that you keep yourself tied tightly to the ground at all times because we haven't established where gravity comes from or that it will exist in the future? C'mon, dude, put just a little effort into your arguments.
Minthegap: "And as for the other argument, we have abundant documentary and archaeological evidence in regards to the life and times of the Bible. Which is typically how you find out about people, who they are, what they've done, etc.
To repeat, there is evidence of the kind necessary to search out the answer to the question. Just not evidence of the variety you wish to accept."
Show me the evidence of the vast worldwide flood and the commensurate lineage of all humans alive today, of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, of the brief life of the planet, of the exodus, and on and on and on. Basically, show me the miracles, the supernatural. Hooray for the evidence that someone lived at those times, but nobody actually argues that in the least. They simply want to see that these magnificent world-shaking miraculous events left any kind of physical evidence, or impinged even faintly on the consciousness of somebody not within that religious culture.
You have to admit, for such compelling evidence as you describe, ninety-some-odd percent of the world somehow remained so convinced that they became buddhist, muslim, hindu, and all those other non-christian faiths. Funny how all those others were dead wrong in the faith of such magnificence, and that fact that there are countless conflicting religions never gives you a clue how easy it is for a false religion to exist. But, naturally, you're the one that's right. Or is the term "truth?"
Minthegap: "The problem with atheism (the agnostic kind or the garden variety) is not that they are reporting NULL, but they are actively arguing for 0."
This isn't software, nor mathematics, nor anything else abstract. You're arguing for the existence of something, period. If you cannot establish this in anything more meaningful than a book, you do not have any reason to squawk about those who argue that, without evidence, they don't find any reason to believe you. A Flying Purple People-Eater can be considered either null or 0, whatever floats your boat, but that's not the issue in the slightest. The issue is whether any religion has the slightest right to define things for non-believers. I fully expect you to misinterpret this, because that's the standard practice, but the burden of proof still remains with those that postulate the existence of the supernatural.
Minthegap: "But with the documents available, the argument for "no evidence" is an irrational one."
Congratulations! You just proved Harry Potter and flying broomsticks! And when you understand why this is flawed, you'll begin to understand why some people don't like their lives defined by particular religions.
Perhaps leprechauns and Abe Lincoln was a stretch. But then again, the amount of documentation on pink unicorns compared to the Jesus of the Bible would also then be a stretch, wouldn't it?
I don't have a problem with agnostic atheism. Like I said, you believe you got a null, you're accepting as default a 0, and you're (supposedly) willing to entertain the possibility that it might be > 0.
However, my counter to that argument is that you can't just accept 0 as the default without a justification of your own. And you give that with Occam's Razor. That's your positive proposition, your "proof", as it were, for your position.
One should seriously weigh that philosophical argument against any evidence provided by the other argument and make a judgment call.
However, I believe that I have successfully made my point that there is a burden of proof for 0, on the basis that you admit to having provided one.
xiangtao, debating the evidence, the character of the evidence, etc. lies outside of the bounds of this discussion, though I'd be certainly willing to entertain that discussion because I believe it to be fascinating, and much more layered then you're apt to give credit.
However, I need to thank you as well for debunking the current comments that I've read here about seeing no evidence. Obviously that's a false statement. I hope that those who made it will consider being more accurate in further discussion.
Because you never know who might take a line of a comment that you make, take it out of context, and then place it on their blog to try to mock you! :)
Pink unicorns and Jesus? Obviously, the Invisible Pink Unicorn is more likely. To be serious, though, since the only evidence of the existence of Jesus, a supposed miracle worker, is written 40 years after his death by people with an agenda, that's only slightly better than no evidence. The Invisible Pink Unicorn would be just as likely (that is, not very likely at all).
Hate to break it to you but bad evidence is worth just as much as no evidence so to say there is no evidence is in effect just as accurate.
Again, past the bounds of the discussion. I take it that you are focusing on the quality of the evidence that you are accepting my declaration that the initial argument is concluded is acceptable.
As for the following statement, I'm refuting "I've seen no evidence", which is semantically different from "I've seen poor evidence, or what I consider to be inferior evidence." So, again, I state you've seen evidence. Perhaps poorly asserted, perhaps biased, but evidence has been seen none the same.
Thanks for a good discussion, we'll have to take up the issue of the evidence at a later date?
Unless you have some pressing issue, I'm sure Matt won't mind that we've moved on a little from the original topic.
I will put it one more time because you seem to not be getting it:
BAD EVIDENCE = NO EVIDENCE
Semantically different, yes. Effectively they are exactly the same thing.
Let me give an analogy on the bad evidence front. A teenager is accused of a crime. His mom steps forward and swears the teen was with her when the crime was committed. Assuming you're the one investigating the crime, do you:
(a) Accept the mom's word automatically
(b) Try to find an impartial witness who can confirm the story.
I'd go with (b). Lacking independent and impartial corroboration, the mom's story isn't worth much as evidence.
Minthegap: "I don't have a problem with agnostic atheism."
Agnostic atheists everywhere will sleep soundly tonight.
Minthegap: "However, my counter to that argument is that you can't just accept 0 as the default without a justification of your own. And you give that with Occam's Razor. That's your positive proposition, your "proof", as it were, for your position."
Not my proof, since I'm intelligent enough to know Ockam's Razor is an exercise in probability, not determination. It does serve a purpose, however, in showing that many proposed "solutions" suffer from requiring complicated support structures. It's a bit like saying a crime was committed by a flying man - might explain the lack of footprints, but now you have to explain the flying bit.
As for your continued null set/zero meanderings, you fail to recognize that fiction/imaginary beings/outright fabrications are a fundamental (ha! I kill me!) part of human existence. Merely postulating the existence of anything at all does not provide it with any kind of mathematical value or potential. And, bluntly, it is not up to me to prove that the Galactic Wombat does not exist simply because my neighbor wants to insist it does. Mental illness, delusions, alcohol, and plain-&-simple insecurity do exist, and explain the Galactic Wombat handily. That's Ockam's Razor in action. It's not a form of proof, it's a method of determining futile actions (like attempting to prove a negative) before embarking on them. If my neighbor wants me to feed the Galactic Wombat, he has to pony the critter up first. Otherwise, it's simply sensible to ignore him.
Oh, and by the way, calling a negative statement a "positive assertion" doesn't change its value, nor make it possible to prove. Feeble try, but at least you're aware enough of the logical flaw in your position that you're trying to dodge it.
Minthegap: "As for the following statement, I'm refuting "I've seen no evidence", which is semantically different from "I've seen poor evidence, or what I consider to be inferior evidence." So, again, I state you've seen evidence. Perhaps poorly asserted, perhaps biased, but evidence has been seen none the same."
You seem to want to redefine "evidence" to mean, "something I want to hear." That's fine for your own personal use, but expecting others to accept it the same way is naive.
I have a piece of burnt wood, and I tell you that it's evidence of a fire-breathing dragon. But my saying this does not make it so. Why not? Because countless things can burn wood. If the "evidence" does not lead in a specific direction, it is not evidence. Full stop.
But this also demonstrates the hypocrisy of your arguments here. You maintain that atheism requires establishing that no god could possibly exist, but then want to qualify the things you cherish to show that god does exist. So, atheism doesn't count because a negative cannot be proven, but your assertion of existence counts because it's okay for you to call [whatever] "evidence"? Where I come from, we call that, "making up the rules as you go along." We usually use the shorter term of "horseshit" though...
Thanks for playing! I wonder if you realize the damage you're doing to religion with your arguments?
See?
Told ya.
Post a Comment