I speak the minds of many Christians when I write that converting an atheist to Christianity on the pretense that there is objective or scientific evidence of the so-called Abrahamic god would be unsatisfactory because Christianity prescribes other reasons for belief in God. For the set of Christians that believe this, an atheist's demand for objective or scientific evidence of God is equivalent to a direct refusal to consider the tenets of Christianity. The resulting disagreement reduces to a difference in epistemology, which would be interesting to address. Theists and atheists struggle with different aspects of epistemology: theists tend to be informal and often fail to describe their epistemology in detail, while atheists tend to appeal to the scientific method without discussing what makes the epistemology of the scientific method valuable and what its limits are.
What are the epistemological standards you use to judge whether you know something is true?
Monotheists, how do your epistemological standards justify your belief in God? If you would respond with simple arguments like `I believe in God by faith alone,' then please explain when and why you think faith is warranted and where else in life it is appropriate or necessary to invest faith to produce knowledge or belief. Is your scheme reliable? How do you know?
Atheists, what are the epistemological limitations of the scientific method? What are its strengths? How do you know, and how do you know that your argument is reliable?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
On Converting Atheists
Good luck.
rmfr
My main reason for not worshiping the Christian god is a moral one rather than anything else. Or at least, that is how I became an atheist.
I don't think it is moral to punish individuals for their honest beliefs (I don't actually know what it means to say that a belief is not honest).
As an atheist I follow the scientific method. It has been proven to be the most reliable and effective tool in finding the truth.
Faith is not a pathway to the truth, it is built on blindingly accepting something, with nothing to support the claim.
In science, you do not build a presupposition and then build your evidence around it. It works the other way, you just follow the facts/data. Science is built on proving things wrong. Once upon a time the general population believed the earth was flat. Observation and just old plain thinking challenged that, and as the centuries have passed much more data has supported the round earth theory. Einstein did thought experiments against a flaw in Newton's works, and came up with the theory of relativity. Further observations from other sciences have confirmed Einstein's theories.
Science is having an open mind, one that is critical on everything that is observed. Religion is adopting a closed and immovable mind, one build on presuppositions and static in progress. All the advances in humanity did not come from religion, it was science that made this world a better place.
Religion supports such barbaric and cruel practices as murder, war, slavery, and even the absolutely disgusting act of sex with minors.
Convert me? My mind is open, but calhais, you have a very steep hill to climb.
So far, it's you who has gotten the closest to answering at least one of the questions I actually wrote in the OP. I have one point and one question.
The point:
No. My concern is stronger than what I wrote in the OP; belief on account of only objective or scientific evidence is unsatisfactory because the Bible prescribes conversion methods, which moreover require personal, face-to-face conversation. You'll notice that the only part of the OP that is about conversion sets up but does not impede upon the questions I actually asked.
The question:
Right, so--I assume you read the post--I'd like to discuss the epistemology behind the scientific method. How can you tell when you've presupposed something and then gathered--not `built'--evidence about it, and how can you tell when you've gone the other way around? What do you think the differences between evidence and presupposition are? You might name some things that you think are evidence, and some things that are presuppositions, but I know which is typically called which--I am a research scientist. The central question here is how you know, when you see a proposition, to call it evidence rather than presupposition, or presupposition rather than evidence. For me, it has become a combination of context and memorization--and that unnerves me. It seems like there ought to be a guiding principle that guarantees that you can tell the difference. There's the specificity distinction: when identifying from a pair of propositions the one that constitutes evidence, I tend to call specific propositions evidence or data, and general propositions conclusions or assumptions. This is obviously not foolproof. A better principle of distinction between data and assumption is important because it allows us to identify the order in which we conduct research, which in turn defines the difference between the scientific method and whatnot; without that principle of distinction, we lack a rigorous way to identify science apart from what is not science. We can completely identify science from what is not science if and only if there exists such a principle of distinction. What is it?
"belief on account of only objective or scientific evidence is unsatisfactory because the Bible prescribes conversion methods, "
Well the bible makes many demonstrably erroneous claims, so why should I care what it prescribes as validation for beliefs? the success of things like empirical science and logic are self evident, they are of course human methods and therefore fallible, but they are demonstrably massively more successful at teaching us about the reality we experience than religions.
What success can anyone point to for these principles of validation religions offer? Suggesting things exist science can't test of course is a claim that would itself require validation, and it must necessarily go beyond a claim or idea that science can't test. or even detect. Unfalsifiable claims are easy to create, and thus science can say nothing about them, but why does the culpability for this in your opinion rest with science as a method, rather than with the type of claim?
" How can you tell when you've presupposed something and then gathered--not `built'--evidence about it, and how can you tell when you've gone the other way around? "
Maybe I'm wrong but since this is only part of the process, and there are strict methods for validation after evidence gathering, I don't see why that matters beyond the latter method suggesting from the off that there is inherent bias in your method. I mean as long as other objective scientists can entirely scrutinise what you have done, and check your results, I don't see why it matters how you got there. Though of course any scientist who persistently had to retract their work after it was falsified by others, and whose methods were demonstrably biased, would not have much chance of securing funding for research. With the possible exception of the Templeton foundation, whose mission statement is by definition biased in favour securing evidence for very specific claims and beliefs, like the supernatural and or religious beliefs.
I wonder what you mean by `self-evident.'
First, it must be validated that science can't test them. It becomes a tautology if you assert that something doesn't exist because science can't test it but science can't test it because it doesn't exist. You've got to be more specific.
The responsibility of determining the truth a claim that the reasoner does not see how to falsify rests neither with the claim nor with science as a method, but with the reasoner.
The first and perhaps most relevant question is how you know they're demonstrably erroneous. I know what you mean, but I don't see why you would think that demonstration is infallible; or if you admit the fallibility of demonstration, then what do you suggest we ought to do to find truth when demonstration fails? Moreover, the results of science have at times been erroneous, and some yet are; your statement about the Bible probably isn't exactly what you were looking for. It would make more sense to claim that you don't care what the Bible prescribes as validation for beliefs because a greater proportion of Biblical claims than scientific ones are erroneous. This is tunnel-vision. If your method to determine whether a biblical claim is erroneous is solely to apply the scientific method, then your epistemology is circular. If you don't, then you ought to explain what the differences between demonstrably true claims and scientifically valid claims are. Judging the claims of the Bible by a scientific epistemology biases the set of true claims against the set of biblical claims just as judging the claims of science by a biblical epistemology biases the set of sound true against the set of scientific claims. Appealing to the authority of science without going deeper into the basis of the epistemology is half the problem here, the other half being appealing to the authority of the Bible without going deeper into the basis of the epistemology.
So . . . expert opinion trumps methodology and data? I can't get completely on board with that, but if that's what you mean, then it raises a few questions. Certainly, peer review is important, but surely you don't rely solely on expert opinion to justify your views on science! Suppose you assert some scientific claim A that you believe is true. When asked how you know it's true, you assert that a certain appropriate authority P asserts A. Fine, you've explained why you believe A; but you've tied up that belief in the proposition that P asserts A. This begs the question: how do you know that P asserts A? Suppose you read the assertion in a news article written by some person Q. Then you might explain that you believe P asserts A because Q asserts P asserts A. With repetition, you might then explain you know Q asserts P asserts A because you read the news article N and you know that Q wrote N, and that N asserts P asserts A. You might justify that you know that N asserts Q asserts P asserts A because you read N, and that Q is the author of N because it was written in N that Q is the author of N; N asserts Q is the author of N. This latter form is neat: N asserts Q is the author of N, which implies that Q wrote N, which asserts that Q is the author of N, which implies that Q asserts Q is the author of N. Moreover, this means that N asserts P asserts A is equivalent to the claim that Q asserts P asserts A. Thus, the justification for your belief in A reduces to that you read that Q asserts P asserts A. You can go on to address the problem of perception: how do you know that you read that Q asserts P asserts A, and how do you know that what you read was what was really written? If you follow a scientific route, then you might go on to appeal to some claim E about perception, which is in turn asserted by an authoritative person S, as reported by a person T, and so forth; this tends to lead to circularity. Otherwise, you might point out that you simply trust your senses; this is equivalent to faith, and it ought to be highlighted. There are plenty of in-betweens and out-of-the box approaches to this, and it would be wonderful if you subscribed to one since it's more likely to be productive, but I'd like to read what you think either way.
Not really sure what `inerrant bias' is. Did you mean `consistent' bias?
"I wonder what you mean by `self-evident.'"
I mean self evident, what else would I mean?
--------------------------------------------------------
Me "Suggesting things exist science can't test of course is a claim that would itself require validation . . . ."
You "First, it must be validated that science can't test them. It becomes a tautology if you assert that something doesn't exist because science can't test it but science can't test it because it doesn't exist. You've got to be more specific."
I don't think you have understood my sentence. Which is odd as it is a simple enough premise. The claim that "there are limits to what science can test" is only valid if it is properly evidenced. Simply asserting science has limits is meaningless. Science can't detect unicorns or mermaids, this does not suggest that the limits of science prevent this. Likewise claiming science can't detect a deity or the supernatural doesn't justify claiming the fault lies with scientific limitations.
"The first and perhaps most relevant question is how you know they're demonstrably erroneous."
Well using the best methods of validation we have then, and yes that would the scientific method.
" I don't see why you would think that demonstration is infallible;"
I never said it was infallible, not implied it. So many people make this mistake. Science can and has evidenced objective facts, for example that we do not live in a geocentric universe, but the earth orbits the sun, but this is not and can never be infallible, because the scientific method requires all facts remain tentative. It is one of science's greatest strengths that it can admit an error and correct it, if the evidence requires it. This is in stark contrast with religions of course where adherents cling to doctrine and dogma long after the evidence has demonstrated it to be false.
"Moreover, the results of science have at times been erroneous,"
Of course, but this is always discovered by science, because as i said scientific facts must remain tentative, whereas religions immutable truths have been refuted by science. name one scientific idea held as true by science, that religion evidenced as false?
"a greater proportion of Biblical claims than scientific ones are erroneous. "
The bible makes claims, science doesn't make claims, it evidences them.
"I mean as long as other objective scientists can entirely scrutinise what you have done, and check your results, I don't see why it matters how you got there.
So . . . expert opinion trumps methodology and data?"
No, not what I meant at all, and to fair the word expert is nowhere in my sentence. Expertise in science is and peer review are important aspects of the method, but they are not used alone to validate ideas.
"Not really sure what `inerrant bias' is. Did you mean `consistent' bias?"
Sorry, predictive text on my phone took a badly spelled word and turned into something else. I meant of course inherent bias.
Fine, then. Is it falsifiable to claim that something is self-evident?
No. It might be false, but [asserting that science has limits] is meaningless if and only if [asserting that [asserting that science has limits] is meaningless] because the proposition, `science has limits,' has a truth value.
These comments on the fallibility of science are true and good. However, you contrast the method of science with the practice of religion after pointing out (`so many people make this mistake') that the practice of science is also flawed.
That's only trivially true. It's true because every scientific result that is believed to be wrong has been overwritten, and it is trivial because we do not know which or how many of our contemporary results will be overwritten later.
No, science does make claims*; this is trivial to disprove.
Good.
* In the sense that people who practice science make claims; just as religion itself does not make claims, the practitioners of religion make claims.
@ calhais
"We can completely identify science from what is not science if and only if there exists such a principle of distinction. What is it?"
Proof, verified by peer review.
That is it, just one simple word ... proof.
We can go around and around playing word salad games, but in the end it always boils down to just one simple distinction, whether a debate in this forum or a scientist working on a problem. Proof.
That explanation is deliberately unproductive. The value of discussing anything more specifically derives from the pointlessness of writing only quips.
@ calhais
So I must assume you can not provide any proof?
The only thing you must do is what you believe is right, by definition. On that note, proof of what? This post is not about conversion!
@ calhais
"the Bible prescribes conversion methods, which moreover require personal, face-to-face conversation."
So your holy book doesn't carry the day, it must be supplemented by rigorous "conversion"?
There are concentration camps in North Korea that also follow that practice.
Hitler card.
You imply that Christian dogma is less bad than Hitler's.
No, I don't.
Not at all, just pointing out that you are describing the classic interrogation technique.
Let me guess, your method involves more than one of your faith, and the session is unrelenting.
No, that isn't true. Pointing that out requires explicit mention, and should read something like `that's a classic interrogation method.' It seems you played the Hitler card instead. Say what you mean the first time if you don't want to be accused of poor form.
The way you're going about this makes it seem like you didn't read past the first three sentences of the OP. Those are part of the setup; the rest is what the OP is about. I am not going to discuss specific conversion methods with you under this forum topic.
So you can not deny my assumption.
You raised the subject, and now when I hold your feet to the fire, you don't want to discuss it.
IMO it becomes a fail when one invokes Godwin's Law.
Of course. I can not deny anything. Did you mean `cannot?' If you want to discuss conversion, be my guest. I advise that you start another forum topic to avoid clutter, since this one is about epistemology.
I suppose my point of view on this would be mostly that everything we experience in reality can be defined and explained by natural causes, and does not require any suspension of reality and the known laws of the physical universe.
For example, I go into my kitchen and find a lovely sandwich on the work top awaiting me, and so I ask what is more rational:
a) my boyfriend was kind enough to take the time to make one using ingredients available
or
b) a mysterious cosmic entity popped into our reality, wished said sandwich into existence and disappeared again with no physical trace left of his being there in the first place
Furthermore, as for "scientific method? What are its strengths? How do you know, and how do you know that your argument is reliable?"
It is incredibly reliable but humble enough to say it doesn't know everything yet.
And here is an experiment for you, the scientific method allows us to know and understand gravity,
now.. pick up a pen and drop it!
For extra fun, before each release, ask your god to not let it hit the ground.
Good luck!
The only "evidence" for the theist is personal experience. Nothing else. In the Christian theology there is not one credible piece of evidence (and history studies require more than one) for the existence of the biblical Jesus, resurrection and much else. Nothing. I doubt there is any more credibility or evidence for any other religion, around the world.
I cannot argue with any personal revelation, be it Christian, Mormon, Islam or Hindu or any other religion. I can dispute all or any of them when they claim to have the "only truth" "the way" and "the life" in all their differing dogmas.
Like Arakish and Cog, I will fight you in debate when you pretend to have "proof" or "superior intellect" to back up your claims. I will join Chimp and Tin Man and many others in ridiculing your pretensions and downright arrogance when you defend the indefensible.
Theists fall into a whole barrel of strife when they try and relate their personal experience to "logic" as "proof" or even tenuous evidence. They cannot do anything but reinforce their own belief, while leaving non theists laughing. When theists try and argue a scientific method or "theory" to advance their bronze age dilemmas, it is even more laughable, hilarious,then just amusing and finally ultimately boring.
That is why atheists ask for proof or evidence of extraordinary claims. I know from experience that it will not be forthcoming. You only have your "faith" (which I will label delusion), however you dress up the pig, however much lipstick you slap on it, it, unfortunately will remain a goddamn hog to the end of its maquillage days.
Hmmm... Very interesting OP. My curiosity is piqued. Unfortunately, I just saw this, and it is really late. I like the questions, though. Gonna give it a little thought, and then check back in tomorrow with whatever those thoughts produce.
I became an atheist when I was 13 years old. Science and philosophy had nothing to do with it. I just stopped believing. Today, I just don't believe tne believers.
Which doesn't really have to do much with the post. The post is about epistemology, not conversion.
@ Calhais
"The post is about epistemology, not conversion" ahem:...... "On converting Atheists" was probably the wrong title then.
Fine.
@ calhais
Now you are moving the goalposts. The title of this thread is "On Converting Atheists", not "The Epistemology of Atheists".
Congrats, you can read a title. Try the rest. Yes, I'm moving the goalposts. Someone moved them from where they were at the end of the OP.
Can you prove this (bold text)? Remember only objective hard empirical evidence will suffice.
rmfr
P.S — now back to read the other replies...
Pages