How do you debunk people that does not believe in experimental facts?

[EEVblog]

but as I've been a member here for years and know well how these types of threads are bound for a lockdown

Correct.
Although if no one mutters the words religion or god again, and use other examples, it's possible to avoid the lockdown hammer.

[TerraHertz]

Edit to put this in FIRST: I hadn't read the thread before. Replied to an earlier post. Sheer bad luck to post this on religion immediately after the local deity declares the words to be lock-triggers. Peace?

Close. God wanted to create a world where he could walk about as an ordinary man, and forget that he was omnipotent, for awhile, believing that he was just an ordinary weakling in a mighty universe, a mere speck among the stars.

Well isn't that just precious.

It's certainly something that starts with 'p'.
No, nothing rude. The word is 'projection'. The assumption that the motives of others are the same as yours. Projecting human traits onto a 'God' (or any advanced non-human intellect) has always struck me as stupendously unimaginative.

One of the most laughable things about religion is the reliance on 'black box' sophistry, pretending to be respectable statements. When it is nothing but illogical rubbish.
Take "God created the Universe" for example. There are three 'black boxes' there; 'God', 'created', and 'the Universe'. Each one is merely a word, that we humans think we understand as a valid concept. But they are are actually far too vague to put together in that sentence and still mean anything at all.

Just a few observations:
'The Universe' - of which we do not yet understand the basic rules - the physics. Science gives us some glimpses of how vast it is, and how deep the rabbit hole of Physics goes. But to speak of 'creating' it, means different things to people depending on how much they understand of that vastness. Even then, one could ignore the physical vastness, AND the mysteries of what the Laws of Physics actually are. One could ask a more fundamental question: HOW did those laws come into existence? And WHAT KEEPS them in existence?
If the universe (whatever we mean by that) was somehow constructed, then surely the fundamental act of creation would have to be the construction and somehow locking-in the Laws - whatever they are. The periodic table of elements, space and time, stars and their clustering into galaxies - all that follows from the fundamental Laws. Which we have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER how they came to be and why they seem to be persistent.

How can we talk about something 'creating' something, that we can't even grasp the nature of?

OK, so consider some supposed 'God' that did that thing (which we can't grasp.)
Err... hello? Complexity problem... Was this 'God' some kind of intellect? But that requires some kind of structure in order to support thought, or processing, or whatever you want to call it. This 'God' had to be able to imagine an objective (will), consider alternatives (freedom of choice), anticipate results (simulation of systems), choose one (will, again), and act to 'create' that. But... this requires a complexity of SOME KIND that must be at least equivalent to the complexity of the created system.

People say "God created the Universe" as if that somehow solves the problem of how things began.
But only because they are using black box terms - easy, meaningless labels, to avoid thinking about the actual problem.
Actually claiming "God created the Universe" just makes the basic problem WORSE. It increases the unexplained complexity, not lessens it. Since 'God' (and the system in which he exists) must have been more complex than 'his' creation, if it was any kind of creative action in the sense we understand.
Otoh, if 'God' was _less_ complex than 'his' creation, then that is more like some kind of spontaneous natural process, and there's little point calling elements of it 'God'.

[Tepe]

what's bizarre to the modern mind is that the Euler Equation was published in 1748 and it took over 50 years for the Complex Plane interpretation to begin to appear, another 30 for it to be popularly recognized

The 30 year period is likely sufficiently explained by the fact that Wessel published in Danish ["Om directionens analytiske betegnelse" (1799)].

[TerraHertz]

1. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato, specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

Here's a Venn diagram I did years ago. Take it as a joke or not.

[VK3DRB]

We all believe things without evidence.

You are told there is three phase in that power socket. You believe it without questioning it and you dare not touch it.

I was told at high school by the teachers the only path to success was a good education and a good job. I later learnt in life that was complete .

According to research in 2002, most Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was behind the 911 attacks on the WTC. They also believed and still do, that the people in the Guantanamo concentration camp Gitmo were all terrorists. The simple minds being arguably from over half the population believed the that the Bush administration and his cheesy American media was telling them. People are very gullible.

[eyiz]

How could anyone be an atheist?

You're either a theist or an agnostic.

If you claim you're an objective scientist, and can see no "evidence" for God, then you can't claim there's "no God" either, since neither is there any "evidence" for that.

This is not how it works. If someone makes a fantastic claim, and there is no evidence to support that claim, then you are entitled to believe the fantastic claim is false.

Ah. But that's the whole thing. There is "evidence" for the existence of God.

The problem is that not everyone can "see" this evidence "today".

So, what is "belief" to some people, is "certainty" to others.

Because of their individual life experiences, some people begin to "see" the evidence.

Then they proclaim, for example,

"[i For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.[/i] -- KJV,   1 Corinthians|13:12

When an individual begins to "see", it is as if he is seeing through a dark glass, just the beginnings of understanding start to dawn upon him, then he "knows" there is something more beyond that which he had previously known about the world.

The things is, unless you're trained in science, all the things that scientists say to you are not evidence, it's just as fantastical. You have to do some scientific experiments first, and learn lots of mathematics and other things, before you can begin to "see" that what scientists say is "truth."

Same with religion. It's just belief to some, and just as scientific to others.

[Groucho2005]

Ah. But that's the whole thing. There is "evidence" for the existence of God.

The problem is that not everyone can "see" this evidence "today".

Now I know that you're just trolling.

[Cerebus]

There's this fella who's suggested that the Universe increased in size by a factor of 10³⁰ between when the Universe was 1 x 10^-34 seconds old and 2 x 10^-34 seconds old with no direct evidence. If any claim is fantastical then, just on the scale of the numbers, that one is. By your standard of proof laid out above, we should label this claim false.

Correct. One should not believe such a claim to be true simply based on a lack of evidence.
However, if you want get technical, and because you used it as a specific example, it likely wasn't an absolute claim, it was a scientific hypothesis.
Religion (and many other such things) are not scientific hypothesis, they are absolute claims of confidence based on faith without any real evidence, and in the face of evidence to the contrary to boot.
To us the analogy you did is a mistake.
Believing Elvis is still alive ranks in the exact same category.

You speak as if there's a different standard of logic required when discussing claims about Pixies, creation or similar topics as there is to discussing any other. My argument is that the nature of claim that "There is a sky pixie" is the exactly the same as "There was inflation", and, in a rational world, the nature of the evidence, criteria for belief, active disbelief etcetera are identical.

My point is, there is a difference between justified scepticism and active disbelief, and the criteria you supply for belief in falsity  aren't sufficient.

Paraphrasing Doc Brown: There's that word again, belief, is there a problem with the understanding of the word in the future?

To have a belief that something is false you must have evidence for that position, not merely the absence of evidence of something being true.

Absolute rubbish.
Classic Russell's teapot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

No it's not rubbish and I'll thank you not to use such inflammatory phrasing if we're going to have a civilized discussion about it.

You cite Russell's Teapot. Let's quote Russell from that article:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

Russell's Teapot willingly exposes Russell's a priori belief in the unlikelyness of teapots and gods. If you think Russell's statement undermines my position, you've failed to understand it, because I read it as direct support for much of what I've been saying both in terms of the logic (in the mathematical sense) of belief and the definitions of atheist and agnostic. It starts with "I ought to call myself an agnostic" and Russell goes on to explain why, because he takes an a priori position (as opposed to a strict evidential one) on the likelihood of pixies/orbiting teapots that he feels he has to call himself an atheist. Russell's definitions of atheist and agnosticism are exactly in line with mine and the dictionary's.

I think that I've previously sufficiently qualified what I said that it ought to be completely clear what I mean and that I'm correct. However, it seems to be eluding you so I'll try again. Please note that I used the phase "active disbelief" and "justified scepticism", perhaps you missed that. I probably should have said "justifiable scepticism" in stead of "justified scepticism" if we're going to be rigorous about my position.

In the Scottish legal system the possible verdicts were "Guilty", "Not proven" and "innocent". I'm arguing that if you believe that someone is guilty as charged you must have evidence to back it up, if you believe they are "innocent" they you must actively have evidence that they are innocent, if you don't have evidence that allows you to form either of those verdicts then you are only justified in picking "not proven".

So, if the claim is "This box contains a cat" I say these positions are logically tenable:

Nature of evidence		Belief
	Believes box contains cat	Has no conclusion	Believes box does not contain cat
Concrete evidence of cat in box	Scientist/Agnostic	Fool	Insane
No evidence either way	Catist	Scientist/Agnostic	Acatist
Concrete evidence that box is empty	Insane	Fool	Scientist/Agnostic

My argument is that in the absence of direct evidence only an agnostic/"not proven" position is fully tenable, and theist and atheist positions require a reliance on a priori reasoning. Russell was quite happy to admit his a priori reasoning and thus deliberately took the label atheist. Note that in this I'm taking the same position as Russell, that likelihood is not the same as provable evidence.

I suspect that your discomfiture is that you think of yourself as an atheist and as rational and don't like that I characterise the atheist position as not strictly logically tenable. If your position is 'on the balance of probabilities there are most probably no sky pixies but I haven't proven that' then I'd call you a fellow agnostic. If your position is 'there are no sky pixies, period' then I'd characterise that as atheist and you'll just have to get as comfortable as Russell was with the fact that that position includes an a priori element and put up with me saying that although I agree that your position is most probabilistically likely to be correct I don't agree it is proven.

[IanB]

You speak as if there's a different standard of logic required when discussing claims about Pixies, creation or similar topics as there is to discussing any other. My argument is that the nature of claim that "There is a sky pixie" is the exactly the same as "There was inflation", and, in a rational world, the nature of the evidence, criteria for belief, active disbelief etcetera are identical.

Of course they are not identical. Firstly, the universe exists and has observable characteristics. It has a past and has a history that we can reason about. Secondly, nobody was claiming there was inflation, they simply said, "If inflation happened, it might explain some of the observations we make now. What do you guys think?" It's a question that exists in a concrete world, a question that has logical consequences that can be considered based on observation and experiment.

Now let's try the same thing with sky pixies. "Hey guys, if there is a sky pixie, it might explain some of the observations we make now about the universe. What do you think?" To which the answer immediately becomes, "What difference in the universe might we expect if there was/was not a sky pixie? Where should we look for those differences and what should we see?" And of course this line of investigation becomes a dead end.

[Cerebus]

But to speak of 'creating' it, means different things to people depending on how much they understand of that vastness.

I think you've hit on a nub of it there. In everyday speech I'll find myself saying things like "Since the Universe was created..." when I really mean "Since the beginning of the Universe...". The very use of the word 'create' implies a wilful act on behalf of someone and shapes how we describe things. You're never going to get me to agree with the 'Politically Correct' that I ought to choose my words to shape what I'm capable of expressing, but I do think there's a nub of truth in language shaping what and how we think. It's quite difficult to have, even a scientific, discussion about cosmology (or particle physics) without the words 'create' or 'creation' creeping in unintended and I suspect that this 'terminological inexactitude' makes an unintended contributory factor to our thinking.

[Cerebus]

You speak as if there's a different standard of logic required when discussing claims about Pixies, creation or similar topics as there is to discussing any other. My argument is that the nature of claim that "There is a sky pixie" is the exactly the same as "There was inflation", and, in a rational world, the nature of the evidence, criteria for belief, active disbelief etcetera are identical.

Of course they are not identical. Firstly, the universe exists and has observable characteristics. It has a past and has a history that we can reason about. Secondly, nobody was claiming there was inflation, they simply said, "If inflation happened, it might explain some of the observations we make now. What do you guys think?" It's a question that exists in a concrete world, a question that has logical consequences that can be considered based on observation and experiment.

Now let's try the same thing with sky pixies. "Hey guys, if there is a sky pixie, it might explain some of the observations we make now about the universe. What do you think?" To which the answer immediately becomes, "What difference in the universe might we expect if there was/was not a sky pixie? Where should we look for those differences and what should we see?" And of course this line of investigation becomes a dead end.

The only way that one can see the two as qualitatively different in terms of provability is if one has formed the opinion, a priori, that they are different. Which it appears you have. You said:

Of course they are not identical. Firstly, the universe exists and has observable characteristics.

Which implies that you think pixies do not exist and do not have observable characteristics.

You, by saying that the criteria for proving pixiehood should somehow be different to the criteria for examining any other phenomenon, are perpetuating the claim of the pixie followers for special treatment and an exclusion from logical, rigorous examination. I suspect that is not what you want, but it is what you are arguing for.

I suspect that we will find that we are probably going to have to agree to disagree because I suspect that I am not good enough to expose the logical flaw I see in your thinking to your satisfaction even though it is obvious to me.

[Cerebus]

This just popped up in my RSS feed:

[eyiz]

Ah. But that's the whole thing. There is "evidence" for the existence of God.

The problem is that not everyone can "see" this evidence "today".

Now I know that you're just trolling.

I'm not trolling.

You can begin to see the evidence too, if you bother to look.

Let's take a simple example, to get you started.

About 2000 years ago, a young woman named Mary gave birth to a son. The problem with her story is that she was supposed to be a "virgin."

Everybody knew that a woman had to have relations with a man in order to get pregnant, and give birth to children. So, very few people believed in that story about this,  so called, "virgin birth."  They were all mostly "skeptics."

That would have to be "a miracle."

The Jews even teased Jesus, questioning the legitimacy of his "virgin birth" story,

Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even  God. --   John 8:41   

That was a direct underhand comment to Jesus that suggested his mother Mary had carnal relations before Joseph. And so Jesus had "two" fathers, one that raised him, and one, that we would today call his "biological father", that contributed the seed.   

Like you, of the scientific mind, they were not buying this impossible story about a man being born from a virgin girl.

Today, however, women give birth to babies without sex with men. They go to the doctor, select features they want from the "sperm bank", get artificially inseminated, and have their own children, without carnal relations with members of the opposite sex. We even have Lesbians that have children, etc..All sorts of things that would be impossible long ago. Nobody would think it strange that a virgin girl could give birth to a son in today's world. We have more knowledge.

Our knowledge has increased.

Of course, you can argue, that there were no "scientists" 2000 years ago with the knowledge to do this. Sure, no "man" had the knowledge. But, that doesn't mean that no intelligent beings in the universe possessed the knowledge that mankind has now uncovered, that allows him to produce these "miracles" to the untrained mind today.

This virgin birth was the first "miracle" recorded in the New Testament.

All the "miracles" that were performed 2000 years ago, were done for a specific reason: to enter these things in the historical record, so that in the future times, when men are able to perform these "miracles" themselves, with ordinary "scientific knowledge", they would then "know" that someone had to have had this same knowledge long ago. This would then be the "proof" that some advanced intelligent life had created man, and given him the power to create new life also.

All this scientific knowledge, is necessary, to understand the miracles performed long ago. Towards the end of time, man will have sufficient understanding to decode the Holy Scriptures, and understand it's "truths." When Daniel asked the angels when the end would come they said,


"But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even  to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge     
shall be increased." --   KJV, Daniel 12:4   

So, we see that first mankind has to "increase his knowledge", which is what we're seeing now. To understand the scriptures, some people need to see the "evidence". Before they can see and understand, they have to learn science, then they will be able to open the holy book and read it with "new understanding." Others, because of different life experiences, can begin to see, even though they are not trained in science.         

For most people, parts of the scriptures are "sealed",  i.e. blocked from direct understanding, and only become "unsealed" at specific times in the future, when men develop the ability to "see" and "understand" through their "increased knowledge."
                                             


               

[Cerebus]

For most people, parts of the scriptures are "sealed",  i.e. blocked from direct understanding, and only become "unsealed" at specific times in the future, when men develop the ability to "see" and "understand" through their "increased knowledge."

That is just an appeal to magical thinking. That at some 'special' time it'll all be clear and logical, even if, at every point in history before that time, it looks like a contradictory mish-mash of history, several different pre-existing mythologies, the opinions of the various writers at the time, and the opinions of the people who selected which texts would be canonical. How can you, in all conscience, suggest that there is any logic or rationality embodied in that kind of thinking? Where does that leave everybody until that 'special' time, wilfully abandoning their 'given' rationality so that they can see the 'truth'?

Which brings us back to the original question, how do apparently rational people get to where they believe this kind of illogic? It's one thing to dispute interpretations of evidence such as biology or geology, it's another entirely to abandon logic and rationality and just appeal to what can only be described as magic, and not the kind that Arthur C. Clarke was talking about.

[eyiz]

Which brings us back to the original question, how do apparently rational people get to where they believe this kind of illogic?

Scientists record their observations in journals, which are archived in libraries, so that other scientists can read them and "check" what they are saying, by making their own observations.

Priests do the same thing. The problem with religion, is that it deals with matters on time scales much longer than the lifespan of a human being. So, it is not that easy to "check" the facts in every age an individual happens to find himself living in. But, by keeping the scriptures around, age after age, the observations eventually become subject to fact "checking" by those individuals fortunate enough to live in the age of "enlightenment."

Sure, copying texts over and over may result in some corruption, but the main themes remain. Rational people can see what is relevant in the stories that are recorded, and extract the essence of  the message from the collection of otherwise imperfect text copies. Skeptics will look for the things that are seemingly contradictory, and throw out the entire message. That's why the scriptures say, "He that hath ears to hear, and eyes to see, let him understand."

[EEVblog]

Thread now locked.