Transcending Proof

[Fundagelico]

I haven't posted here in a while, but for anyone interested, the Secular Web just published a paper of mine, a rebuttal to Richard Carrier's argument that the nonexistence of God can be easily proven:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/don_ ... proof.html

I realize that many atheists and skeptics do not believe theism to be falsifiable. For those who do believe theism to be falsifiable, I'll try to stick around and answer any serious or substantive counterarguments.

Questions for debate:

1. Do you believe that theism (particularly Christian theism) is falsifiable?

2. If yes, how would you propose to falsify it?

3. If no, why do you believe it to be false?

[rookiebatman]

Fair enough. But bear in mind a couple of factors that may affect my interpretation: First, I don’t know you well enough (yet) to trust you to any great degree. Second, message boards like this are notorious for baiting, bitter sarcasm and general time-wasting mischief in the guise of honest or respectful debate.

Oh, absolutely, and that's why I did reciprocally give you the benefit of the doubt even if it might have seemed a little brusque. I am painfully aware of just how brutal the internet can be (especially for the type of person who has trouble interpreting subtle social cues).

But for anyone lacking rational justification, there is no "why" in the first place. Hence there's nothing for them to debate.

But don't you agree that someone lacking rational justification could think they have it? To me, that's where the "why" comes in.

Each item on the list consists of a fact which makes the "hypothesis" of Christian theism more likely than it would be otherwise. Collectively these facts constitute evidence for Christian theism.

But I would say that each item in question does not only consist of a fact, right? For instance, let's take the item, "the equally prophetic and miraculous ministry of Jesus Christ as attested in thousands of early manuscripts derived from originals dated to within a generation of his death and purported resurrection." The fact within that item is that there were thousands of early manuscripts derived from originals dated to within a generation of his death and purported resurrection (and I don't even know if this is a fact myself, but I'll take your word on it for the moment). The argument, then, is that these manuscripts (given their high quantity and early dating) are most likely accurate, and therefore their reports of Jesus' ministry being prophetic and miraculous are most likely true. Is this a pretty fair assessment of the split between fact and argument within that listing of evidence?

Either way, I perceive that it would be a waste of time to argue with anyone who maintains that there are precisely zero facts in evidence which increase the probability that Christian theism is true. And with limited time and resources on my hands I have to choose my battles wisely.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I were questioning this type of thing, I think it would be the arguments (or interpretations), not the facts themselves that I'd take issue with (although we may, in some cases, disagree about whether a fact is truly factual or not).

That's the rub. I do not believe anyone could provide such a demonstration. For me to argue that point would be like arguing with someone telling me that my daughter lives in Australia (she's living with me now, and there are vast oceans between us and Australia); or with someone who insists that what appears to be a real world around us is actually "The Matrix."

But your daughter living in Australia is an empirical fact, not subject to interpretation. You don't really need to take the fact and construct an argument from it; the fact is basically tantamount to the conclusion in that case. That's where I feel like the difference lies with this type of discussion, because there's always different ways to look at and interpret facts, and so there's always a possibility that someone else will have a fresh perspective. I came from the church, and I don't read a lot of atheist literature, so even though it's entirely possible that I've reached the same conclusions as what might be considered "the party line," at least I feel somewhat comfortable that I reached them for myself instead of parroting someone else's thoughts.

How about this: You give it your best shot. If I regard your arguments worthy of a reply, I'll reply. If I don't reply you can always argue that I was simply unable to answer them.

I'll do you one better, if you like. To save both of us time, why not just start with a single one of the evidences given in that list? I'm fairly new to the scene debating these issues, so I have no real saturation with any of them, and I think I'd be able to find academic interest with each. So, if you'd like, you can pick whichever one of the items from that list you're the least tired of discussing, and then I'll give you my thoughts on that one. Sound good?

[Fundagelico]

It is if the only reason you believe it's been proven to be the best model is because someone else tells you it's been proven to be the best model. And that is precisely why a considerable majority of university students believe evolution to be the best model.

Incorrect. Science provides predictive models that serve practical reasons. Since science (and evolutionary science) thrive on others continually testing it and refining it, (because there's quantifiable and testable data), and religious faith doesn't allow that because it can't because there's no quantifiable and testable data, there's a huge difference. You can keep saying that belief in evolution is similar to religious faith, and you can keep on believing it, but your position doesn't make it true. The proof is that evolutionary science would LOVE for you to show where it is false through a honest research because science would improve its understanding, and that process can't even be begun with religious faith regardless of how much the religious faith would hate it.

Everything you said above may be true, though I wouldn't guess that "science" (even in the narrowly secular sense you have described it) could either confirm or falsify everything you said above one way or another. But let's assume that you are correct: Evolution then is not just the best model, but it is the best model because science works from predictive models that serve practical reasons while religion is just this irrational, arbitrary belief. Including the word "because" does not strengthen your argument, because your argument depends upon the validity of models you have not proven and a preponderance of evidence you have not supplied.

So if at this point in our conversation I were to begin believing you, my belief would be based on nothing but your own confident, authoritative pronouncements. In effect I would become your student, one who trusts you and therefore believes what he is told.

Okay, but that still leaves untold millions of irrational persons who agree that evolution represents the best model but refuse to even consider a better model because they already consider evolution a fact of science beyond rational dispute.

That's because those millions recognize that science is responsible for every electric device they've ever seen, and religious faith can't do anything practical. It's proven evidence versus pure philosophy.

I think you may be putting the cart before the horse here. It's not like Edison invented the light bulb because he had an unfailing, encyclopedic knowledge of all things scientific and theoretical. Historians generally agree that Edison owed his success to perseverance. Of course, perseverance is not a scientific ideal but a moral virtue promoted by religion, Christianity in particular.

To put it another way: Without philosophy, we would never discover scientific evidence. Do you suppose whoever first invented the wheel and put it to use really understood classical Newtonian mechanics?

Perhaps, but an assertion that Christianity is "silly" is not itself evidence of silliness.

Yep. That's why I wrote that FACTS make the Christian assertion a silly one.

Perhaps, but an assertion that "FACTS" make Christianity silly is not itself evidence.

Belief in something that has zero demonstrable proof is irrational. Before there was good reasons to believe in General Relativity, it would have been stupid to believe in it. It's not rational to believe that gravity is caused by an infinite number of invisible fairies pulling and pushing on matter, today, even though that theory isn't ruled out and one day might be proven to be true. Agreed? Same with general relativity or quantum theory, the fact that they have been proven true in recent years doesn't mean that it would have been sensible to have faith that they were true when there was zero evidence or reasoning for general relativity or quantum theory.

Fair enough. Now when I say "belief in unproven truth is not irrational," I mean only that some truths, even as we speak, have yet to be proven. History strongly suggests this.

You mentioned general relativity and quantum theory. Does that mean you have a fully coherent theory of quantum gravity? More to the point: Do you believe such a theory to be forthcoming?

[Hatuey]

Everything you said above may be true, though I wouldn't guess that "science" (even in the narrowly secular sense you have described it) could either confirm or falsify everything you said above one way or another. But let's assume that you are correct: Evolution then is not just the best model, but it is the best model because science works from predictive models that serve practical reasons while religion is just this irrational, arbitrary belief. Including the word "because" does not strengthen your argument, because your argument depends upon the validity of models you have not proven and a preponderance of evidence you have not supplied.

Yes, the word "because" does strengthen my argument. It's part of the syllogism. No, the models have not been conclusively proven, which is why further science may alter them or overturn them. The models are the strongest found so far, and so there is no reason to use other models at this time.

So if at this point in our conversation I were to begin believing you, my belief would be based on nothing but your own confident, authoritative pronouncements. In effect I would become your student, one who trusts you and therefore believes what he is told.

Nope. You could go investigate the science yourself, and attempt to overthrow its models and theories. What you choose to believe or disbelieve about them or religion is irrelevant, because you must admit the strength of the models and theories in the process of evaluating them in order to demonstrate their supposed incorrect nature. A model that is the most successful is the model that must be used during the process of attempting to overthrow it. Again, any scientific models or theories you might overthrow would lead to greater understanding of that discipline of science, and science would welcome your input.

I think you may be putting the cart before the horse here. It's not like Edison invented the light bulb because he had an unfailing, encyclopedic knowledge of all things scientific and theoretical. Historians generally agree that Edison owed his success to perseverance. Of course, perseverance is not a scientific ideal but a moral virtue promoted by religion, Christianity in particular.

To put it another way: Without philosophy, we would never discover scientific evidence. Do you suppose whoever first invented the wheel and put it to use really understood classical Newtonian mechanics?

You've completely missed the point, here, haven't you? Science proves its theories to the degree that it can physically alter the world or perception of the world. Yes, science depends upon an internal philosophy, but internal philosophy doesn't alter the quantum world or the effects of general relativity or the effects of simple mechanics or physics; internal philosophy must adapt to the observed and true effects of physics. Nobody has to understand any physics for physics to keep working, and nobody has complete understanding, but wheels do what wheels do regardless of any labeling with some dead dude's name.

Just because one religion or another was in the causal chain of some scientific discovery does not make that religion more or less true. The Greeks weren't right about their gods just because they made important mathematical discoveries and Islam isn't correct just because they made radical advances in mathematics and engineering and science while European Christians were stumbling around buying nails from Jesus' cross to save some long dead niece during the dark ages.

Perhaps, but an assertion that "FACTS" make Christianity silly is not itself evidence.

Why do you keep worrying about the assertion when I keep pointing you to the facts themselves? We've already covered this; the facts imply that Christianity is stupid, not the assertion. You can do whatever you want with the facts, though. Not my concern.

Fair enough. Now when I say "belief in unproven truth is not irrational," I mean only that some truths, even as we speak, have yet to be proven. History strongly suggests this.

History does more than suggest it; it demands it. But there's no practical reason to consider one unproven truth as more worthy of believe than any other unproven truth without some philosophy or ideology to tip the scales. Brainwashing by a particular culture since birth has enough philosophical torque to do the job; hence, Americans believing in Christ and Middle Easterners believing in Mohammed.

You mentioned general relativity and quantum theory. Does that mean you have a fully coherent theory of quantum gravity?

Nope. I wish. I'd be rich...or at least respected in cool circles.

More to the point: Do you believe such a theory to be forthcoming?

Not in my lifetime. Gravity is the most interesting mystery for obvious reasons. At this point, a rational person might equate its power with god's work and presence since it represents our biggest gap in knowledge. It's a great god-of-the-gaps..at least its a better hiding place for such a god than any other at this point in history.