My Response to Matzke

I'm agreeing with CKW. In the simplest sense, this multi-post discussion has drifted further and further from an accurate description of how people act and think in the world.

"Yes, a person can simultaneously believe in science, backed by experiment, logic, fact, observation and reason, and also believe in a Supernatural Entity. But I believe he does so at the cost of his intellectual integrity."

Hmm. Timothy, you clearly have a powerful and well thought out view of the world. At the same time, I don't believe it quite matches how things work, y'know?

Whatever Weisberg did or did not claim or almost claim, it's not a very good article.

"That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument."
That's never a good sign, reading that sort of claim

"It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, "
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/08/11/a_dog_and_the_mind_of_newton.php

" and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries."
Pennock claims that evolution gained broad acceptance surprisingly quickly, with anti-evolutionist creationism being a later, largely American development. I don't know enough about this to judge.

Whatever Weisberg did or did not claim or almost claim, it's not a very good article.

Hmm. Timothy, you clearly have a powerful and well thought out view of the world. At the same time, I don't believe it quite matches how things work, y'know?

Weisberg conflates all religion with a particular brand of Biblical-based Christianity, thereby making the same mistake that so many political analysts made after the 2004 election. Remember all that horsehocky about "values"?

There's religion and there's religion. In the US, "religion" usually means "Catholic, Jewish or Protestant, and mostly the latter, especially the fundamentalists." That's why we get such perversities as the reinterpretations of American history claiming that "establishment of religion" means "establishment of sect." A more considered view would recognize that there are many varieties of religious thought, and that only a small number of them are threatened by evolution, the heliocentric solar system, or diseases caused by microbes.

This is, incidentally, why Matzke is wrong to say that atheism is a religion. It obviously is not. It's simply the belief that the case for the existence of some Supreme Entity has not been made.

— Tim

"That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument." That's never a good sign, reading that sort of claim

" and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries." Pennock claims that evolution gained broad acceptance surprisingly quickly

Crap.

Sorry, ts (not Tim Sandefur). Although the term "id clash" also has a confused meaning, especially around here. *cough*

Then you must personally define "atheist" in a non-standard way. I believe the common accepted usage is "one who believes there is no God" (c.f. Webster's).

"What is atheism?" Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

Weisberg conflates all religion with a particular brand of Biblical-based Christianity

— frank schmidt

A more considered view would recognize that there are many varieties of religious thought, and that only a small number of them are threatened by evolution, the heliocentric solar system, or diseases caused by microbes.

Although the term "id clash" also has a confused meaning, especially around here. *cough*

— CKW

Is there not a word for the system of beliefs that positively asserts the nonexistence of gods or supernatural beings?

Disbelieving in god is no more "faith based" than disbelieving in Santa Claus.

Is there not a word for the system of beliefs that positively asserts the nonexistence of gods or supernatural beings?

Is there not a word for the system of beliefs that positively asserts the nonexistence of gods or supernatural beings?

ts is describing "weak atheism" whereas the above position is an example of "strong atheism".

See for example http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

I tend to think of them more as "atheism" and "antitheism" rather than "weak" and "strong"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

I will continue to accept the lexical definition as authoritative

I know several self-labelled atheists and numerous agnostics in real life, all of whom conform to the standard lexical definitions.

I assume the lexical def is also what Matzke had in mind.

I'm pretty impressed by the quality of the comments. Let me just say to ts (Not Tim Sandefur) that I'm a great admirer of George Smith, and am glad to see his work mentioned.

Although anedcdotal evidence has its limits, let me chime in and state that

1) I'm an atheist, in the "weak" sense (which is a bit of a misnomer, being philosophically on much stronger ground that the so-called "strong" atheism);

2) I have _never_ met any other kind of atheist;

3) I have met several weak atheists who adamantly refused to be called thus, choosing instead "agnostic" as their self-defining label.

However, ts is perfectly right: just like one would read Marxist thinkers to find out what Marxists say and think, and read evolutionary biologists to discover what evolutionary biologists say and think, one must read atheist thinkers to find out what atheists say and think.

I, for one, insist that what I -an atheist- say and think be solely determined by what I say and think, and not by "popular usage" of a word that centuries of theist monopoly on language has loaded of negative connotations.

What I've done is insisted that evolution deprives the Argument From Design of whatever logical force it once had---an argument that for the longest time was thought to "prove" theism. Again, the onus is on him who asserts the claim.

It is quite rare in this day and age to come across a book proclaiming the unification of science and religion. It is unique to find a book asserting, as I shall in the body of this book, that theology is a branch of physics, that physicists can infer by calculation the existence of God and the likelihood of the resurrection of the dead to eternal life in exactly the same way as physicists calculate the properties of the electron. One naturally wonders if I am serious. I am quite serious. But I am as surprised as the reader. When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straight-forward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.

There are many arguments for the existence of a God, or the rational justifiability of holding such a belief. Teleological, cosmological, ontological, moral, transcendental, religious experience based, etc.

To my mind they all - how do I put this delicately? - suck monkeyballs. Each an "ID" of its respective field metaphorically speaking.

However, all refuting ID carefully break down the flow of argument in one popular style of argument for theism. Only in that very narrow sense does such an endeavor aid atheism.

To say science can speak to such issues is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

I agree with Aureola Nominee. It is extremely aggravating to every atheist I know to step into these kinds of conversations and have someone leaf through a dictionary and announce what we believe.

I also find the syntactic hairsplitting of "I don't believe in god" vs. "I believe gods don't exist" to be a waste of time. There is no evidence for god, period. This is sufficient. I don't believe in god, and I have pragmatically concluded that gods don't exist; do not try to pigeonhole me semantically, as if those two possibilities are mutually exclusive and fixed. We are human beings, not rigid logical constructs ruled by grammar.

Consider what it would take to break the password, especially one that is pretty long and deliberately cryptic? Only an act of intelligence!

Oh, we were having such a great time clawing at each other - don't bring ID up now!

Ok, what I was about to write before I spilled a glass of lemonade tea on the computer - go Jillian's comment over at Pharyngula.

I would like to announce that entries are now being accepted for the very first Evolution/Religion County Fair (I was going to do a Carnival, but was just a little too . . . exciting); All entries must be pre-registered by August 21; winners will be displayed at One Long Argument on August 22. Entry classes will deal with numerous aspects of the relationship between evolution and religion (including, of course, humorously-shaped vegetables - I mean posts).
Additional information will be available at
http://onelongargument.blogspot.com
Entries can be submitted at onelongargument@hotmail.com

Disbelieving in god is no more "faith based" than disbelieving in Santa Claus.

— steve

I don't believe in god, and I have pragmatically concluded that gods don't exist; do not try to pigeonhole me semantically, as if those two possibilities are mutually exclusive and fixed.

— PZ Meyers

The point is that, as Sanchez quoted, there is no need for such a hypothesis.

Further, taking the basic view that the onus of proof is on him who asserts the claim, the existence of a natural explanation for the origin and diversity of life makes it far more difficult for those who claim the existence of a supernatural entity to support that proposition on the basis of reason. They must resort, as Sanchez points out, to actual faith, something that is somewhat rarer than is often claimed.

Sure, a person can believe in both: he can go through life insisting on reasons and logic in everything except The Most Important Things; yes, a person can simultaneously believe in science, backed by experiment, logic, fact, observation and reason, and also believe in a Supernatural Entity. But I believe he does so at the cost of his intellectual integrity.

I do believe that it's science or religion, in that I believe it is logic, evidence, facts, and reason, versus the will to believe in the absence of reasons. Whether that changes any minds or not is irrelevant. It's the truth as I see it, and all I can do in the service of "changing minds" is to say the truth as I see it. I will not trim the truth as I see it to suit the demographics of an audience. I very strongly disagree with the proposition, advanced by an unfortunately large number of American defenders of evolution, that we should avoid mentioning this conflict, or try to smooth it over, so as to appease the sensibilities of those too sensitive to face it.

Finally, as to comments, I no longer have the time to police the comments in all my posts, and so I open comments only when I think people might really have questions or something constructive to contribute.

You know, CKW, I consider "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to be a case of Special Pleading.

On the contrary, absence of evidence is evidence of absence; if there is no evidence of something, it is highly likely that something does not exist... except for supernatural entities (according to proponents of said entities). Of course, "evidence" is not "proof"; but like Isaac Asimov said, "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

Your suggestion that Santa-Clausism makes testable predictions which fail and therefore falsify this doctrine is irrelevant. Sure, in some homes parents sneak in presents; but... how do you know that they aren't simply "the agents of Santa's will"? Maybe Santa is invisible, maybe he works by implanting suggestions in parents' minds...

You see where this leads, don't you, CKW?

Also, let's try to keep our labels straight: "atheism" refers to belief (theos), "agnosticism" to knowledge (gnosis). I am an atheist (because I lack belief in any Gods) and an agnostic (because I don't know for sure whether such things exist).

When you encounter one of those semimythical "strong atheists", CKW, I would be interested in chatting with him/her.

You will accept the lexical definition as authoritative as to what atheists believe, contra what many atheists say they believe?

— ts

I, for one, insist that what I -an atheist- say and think be solely determined by what I say and think, and not by "popular usage" of a word that centuries of theist monopoly on language has loaded of negative connotations.

— Aureola

This is, incidentally, why Matzke is wrong to say that atheism is a religion. It obviously is not. It's simply the belief that the case for the existence of some Supreme Entity has not been made.

— Tim

You know, CKW, I consider "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to be a case of Special Pleading. On the contrary, absence of evidence is evidence of absence; if there is no evidence of something, it is highly likely that something does not exist...

— Aureola

There seems to be a rip in our big tent.

Those who oppose the efforts of ID/C proponents to insinuate their fundamentalist religious beliefs into every aspect of day-to-day life are a diverse group. Some are agnostics and atheists. Some are deists. Some are Christians who are bothered by the idea of theocracy. What matters is that each faction supports the idea that science, and science alone, should be taught in science classrooms.

Someone earlier (I think it was Nick) suggested that on some issues we will have to agree to disagree. He's right.

On the contrary, absence of evidence is evidence of absence; if there is no evidence of something, it is highly likely that something does not exist... except for supernatural entities (according to proponents of said entities).

— Aureola Nominee

When you encounter one of those semimythical "strong atheists", CKW, I would be interested in chatting with him/her.

— Aureola Nominee

I have pragmatically concluded that gods don't exist

— PZ Meyers

Douglas:

Nobody can deny me the right to self-definition, and I'm glad you agree. As to self-proclaimed agnostics, I do not deny them the right to define themselves as they see fit; but if that self-definition is based on a faulty premise (e.g., "I call myself an agnostic because atheists dogmatically insist they know for a fact that no Gods exist"), then it has major problems.

CKW:

You are wrong. Absent evidence, positive existential claims are on a much weaker position than their opposite numbers. This is called "burden of proof". If you were to claim in 1950 that "orange rocks exist on the hidden face of the moon" this would have carried no weight whatsoever, as we lacked any evidence for it. Sure, they might exist; but the belief in their existence would have been unwarranted, and - exactly as I said - we would have been justified in thinking they did not exist. On the other hand, please realize that the unwarranted belief in the existence of orange rocks on the far side of the Moon has never been used as a pretext to claim access to a superior kind of knowledge.

As to the PZ quote, you seem to have misunderstood: he's saying he has pragmatically concluded that gods don't exist, which is exactly what Asimov was saying in 1982 and what I myself subscribe to.
A pragmatic conclusion is not the mathematical proof of a theorem. Nice moving the goalposts, though.

Then you must personally define "atheist" in a non-standard way. I believe the common accepted usage is "one who believes there is no God" (c.f. Webster's). In that case, atheism is, if not a religion per se, a faith at least. There is a clear logical difference between not believing that there is a deity (agnosticism, a consequence of believing that the case has not been made for the existence of some Supreme Entity) and believing that there is no deity (atheism, which would necessarily follow only from being convinced that the case has been made for the absence of any Supreme Entity). Belief in the absence of a God given that "the case for the existence of some Supreme Entity has not been made" is either irrational or faith-based. Douglas

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

Buddhism is non-theistic as well, as is Jainism.

Surely the atheists here do not embrace these systems of belief either. The implication on this thread that atheism == scientific rationalism is wrong and ignorant.

You're wrong. Is it a matter of faith for me to not believe in unicorns? Please explain how one could possibly hold a belief system where they believe everything which is not disproved.

— Ruthless

yes, a person can simultaneously believe in science, backed by experiment, logic, fact, observation and reason, and also believe in a Supernatural Entity. But I believe he does so at the cost of his intellectual integrity.

Maybe, but not at the cost of his scientific integrity.

Absent evidence, positive existential claims are on a much weaker position than their opposite numbers. This is called "burden of proof".

— Aureola Nominee

he's saying he has pragmatically concluded that gods don't exist

— Aureola Nominee

There's more evidence for ethics (including from other animals more or less closely related to humans) existing/working/arising than there is for any gods. These concepts do not have the equal validity you pretend they do (rather like trying to give equal credit and time to science and to pseudoscientific nonsense like ID).

CKW:

Feel free to continue this little game of yours alone. A pragmatic conclusion is not the rockhard certitude you claim (without proof nor evidence, as usual) PZ proclaims.

Atheism, plain and simple, is, at a minimum (i.e. the basis shared by all atheists), the lack of belief in gods. This is what generations of prominent atheist thinkers have said, written, and defended.

Trying to claim otherwise - against what outrspoken atheists have repeatedly told you in this very thread - is arrogantly futile.

Er, can I suggest asking Dr Myers what he believes? The way he's being talked about strikes me as just plain rude. And speaking of which - I really must agree with him concerning theology discussion on the Panda's Thumb.

-Schmitt.

steve wrote: Disbelieving in god is no more "faith based" than disbelieving in Santa Claus.

We thus see how quantum theory requires the existence of God. Of course, it does not ascribe to God defined in this way any of the specific additional qualities that the various existing religious doctrines ascribed to God. Acceptance of such doctrines is a matter of faith and belief... If elementary systems do not "possess" quantitatively determinate properties, apparently God determines these properties as we measure them. We also observe the fact, unexplainable but experimentally well established, that God in His decisions about the outcomes of our experiments shows habits so regular that we can express them in the form of statistical laws of nature....this apparent determinism in macroscopic nature has hidden God and His personal influence on the universe from the eyes of many outstanding scientists. F. J. Belinfante Purdue University Measurements and Time Reversal in Objective Quantum Theory

Tipler on Peer Review I first became aware of the importance that many non-elite scientists place on "peerreviewed" or "refereed" journals when Howard Van Till, a theistic evolutionist, said my book The Physics of Immortality was not worth taking seriously because the ideas it presented had never appeared in refereed journals. Actually, the ideas in that book had already appeared in refereed journals. The papers and the refereed journals wherein they appeared were listed at the beginning of my book. My key predictions of the top quark mass (confirmed) and the Higgs boson mass (still unknown) even appeared in the pages of Nature, the most prestigious refereed science journal in the world. ..... More than this, quantum mechanics is actually teleological, though physicists don't use this loaded word (we call it "unitarity" instead of "teleology"). That is, quantum mechanics says that it is completely correct to say that the universe's evolution is determined not by how it started in the Big Bang, but by the final state of the universe. Every stage of universal history, including every stage of biological and human history, is determined by the ultimate goal of the universe. And if I am correct that the universal final state is indeed God, then every stage of universal history, in particular every mutation that has ever occurred, or ever will occur in any living being, is determined by the action of God.

Abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence if and when we can reasonably expect evidence should be observed if a claim is true. For instance, the lack of gravitational effect provides us with some reason to think there isn't a planet between Earth and Mars. So does lack of light waves.

One of the ways in which atheism - strong atheism - towards specific gods is promoted is through arguing reality should look a certain way if God - given a very specific defintion - exists, and arguing reality does not match with those expectations. Arguments from evil are probably the best known sort of atheological argument of that sort. These sorts of arguments tend to be very broad for directly attacking the gods most people do currently believe in. (There are a few other approaches to atheology, but I just wanted to address that cliche')

CKW writes,

"It is also fine to say "I believe in God, but I am aware it is not a belief based on positive evidence". "

Right now, this statement likely being narrowed to emprical evidence. Let's simply expand it to, "I believe in God, but I am aware I do not have rationally compelling reasons for doing so." Is this fine? Why? For conversations sake, let's take the popular definition of a "belief" being a mental attitude that something is true.

"Arguments from evil are probably the best known sort of atheological argument of that sort."

Straight from the Redundancy department of repitition. I apologize. I should proofread my entries before sending them.

I think the hypothesis of ID at the cosmological and thus biological scale is reasonable from a purely scientific perspective based on natural law alone (and I believe it is true from a personal perspective).

— S. Cordova

I think the hypothesis of ID at the cosmological and thus biological scale is reasonable from a purely scientific perspective based on natural law alone (and I believe it is true from a personal perspective).

— S. Cordova

I think the hypothesis of ID at the cosmological and thus biological scale is reasonable from a purely scientific perspective based on natural law alone (and I believe it is true from a personal perspective).

— S. Cordova

CKW:

What Osmo said. I am a "strong atheist" when it comes to the God of Christianity because I think there is evidence that he does not exist, not merely an absence of evidence that he does exist. The argument from evil is an obvious evidence-based argument that the God of Christianity does not exist.

Physical law and empirical evidence suggested the strong nuclear force and it's properties, same for this hypothesized Deity.

Atheism, plain and simple, is, at a minimum (i.e. the basis shared by all atheists), the lack of belief in gods. This is what generations of prominent atheist thinkers have said, written, and defended.

— Aureola Nominee

Right now, this statement likely being narrowed to emprical evidence. Let's simply expand it to, "I believe in God, but I am aware I do not have rationally compelling reasons for doing so." Is this fine? Why? For conversations sake, let's take the popular definition of a "belief" being a mental attitude that something is true.

— osmo

The argument from evil is an obvious evidence-based argument that the God of Christianity does not exist.

— Don P

Liberal theologians view religious language (i.e. descriptions of God, or of religious experience) as inevitably limited. Our language belongs to the world of phenomena, whereas religious experiences exist in the realm of noumena, so no matter how hard we try, our language can never describe God factually, but only in metaphors and analogies, symbols and myths etc. These myths, analogies etc. are important in forming religious communities and traditions, and can be a useful way of expressing a particular thought or feeling about God, but we cannot hope for them to sum up God's nature (God is non-reducible, non-naturalisable, and essentially ineffable). The interpretation of the Bible (hermeneutics) within liberal theology is non-propositional. This means that liberal theologians do not take the Bible as an inventory of factual statements such as 'God divided the light from the darkness', but rather interpret the Bible as a document of the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing, within a historical and cultural context. Therefore, religious models and concepts must be updated to reflect the class, gender, social and political etc. context from which they emerge, so that they will appear relevant and interesting. Liberal theologians would not make the claim that any particular apostle's account of their religious experiences could be any more true, or more relevant to an individual, than the experience of the individual themself.

The concept of a Deity is reasonalby derivable from physical law as shown by Barrow and Tipler

— S. Cordova

Aha. Oh dear. I don't think you quite understood their crackpottery.

The views of a large number of contemporary physcal scientists are summed up in the essay "remarks on the Mind-Body Question" written by Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner. Wigner begins by pointing out that most physical scientists have returned to the recognition that thought--meaning the mind--is primary. ..... atomic physics, which is now understood most fully by means of quantum mechanics, must be formulated with the mind as a primitive component of the system. The laws of physics and chemistry have been identified with the immanent God, a very impersonal God committed to a lawful universe. ... We study God's immanence through science. I am sure that there are scientists and theologians who are uncomfortable with that statement but its truth seems undeniable... Deep within the laws of physics and chemistry the universe is fit for life. This fitness we identify with God's immanece...The present study of this fitness take place under the rubric of "design"

practically a universal education in both the history of modern science and the history of the Universe

John D. Barrow was born in London in 1952 and attended Ealing Grammar School. He graduated in Mathematics from Durham University in 1974, received his doctorate in Astrophysics from Oxford University in 1977 (supervised by Dennis Sciama), and held positions at the Universities of Oxford and California at Berkeley before taking up a position at the Astronomy Centre, University of Sussex in 1981. He was professor of astronomy and Director of the Astronomy Centre at the University of Sussex until 1999. He is the author of 325 scientific articles in cosmology and astrophysics, and is a recipient of the Locker Prize for Astronomy and the 1999 Kelvin Medal of the Royal Glasgow Philosophical Society.

My earlier link is not working try:

Equation on Page 471, derived from Schrodinger's Equation

My apologies.

Well... First, is empirical evidence the only source of "rationally compelling reasons"? Second, can empirical evidence answer all useful questions? I don't think the answer is "yes" to either of these questions.

"What am I to do, other than interpret that as an assertion that people with religion are wrong?"
I liked Jillian's comments over at the parallel Pharyngula discussion:
"And if there isn't some sound reason for this bright shining line [where ~science, or more accurately empiricism(maybe?) stops, and faith gets to take over], then I don't see a way to any other conclusion but that the position thus espoused is inherently contradictory. That doesn't make it "wrong", in some grand ontological sense - it just makes it funny looking."

CKW - " But it's important to understand that non-fundamentalist religion is not static, any more than science is, and to treat it as if it was is both unfair and deliberately ignorant."
Dunno deliberate, but we have to consider how [religion] works in the world, and in people's heads. Way back with the Sanchez post, it seemed like a forward-moving discussion might get started - and there's been some really cool bits - like the liberal theology post - but . . .

Ok. Now, in terms of the battle for actual science education - I staggered over here because I see this whole ~compatibility issue as practically relevant (if there's a strong case that evolution does strongly undermine not only specific fundamentalist beliefs that, frankly, all of science contradicts, but the major teachings of many religions, then I, at least, have to stop saying they can get along). Anybody have suggestions in terms of the outside world?

Alan asked: Could you give us any idea what that reasonalbe hypothesis is?

The battle of the angry male philosophers continues apace. Which religion/lack of religion grants its adherents that special prize, so tantalizing, so craved, "rational superiority"?

That's good new for Salvador Cordova. His wrong-headed views on biology can be laughably dismissed by the application of testable science. Change the focus to philosophy, and he's on his feet for many rounds longer.

I must say, I strongly agree that atheists should be asked what they believe, instead of presumed to believe something based on a lexical source.

I note with interest that the same courtesy is rarely considered, when atheist posters address pro-science "religious" posters. Typically, the word "religion" is presumed to describe a set of beliefs that even a fundamentalist creationist might consider, with justification, to be a straw man version of their views. Even the rather clipped description of "liberal theology" from Wikkepedia shows the error of that approach.

For some reason, some atheist posters appear obsessed with proving not only that their view is a rational view (a point which few would deny), but that their view is the ONLY rational view.

Also, as an additional point, it is a stretch to describe humans as "rational". In animal species, instinctive behaviors evolve which serve a "rational" purpose (if we regard the survival and successful reproduction of an individual as a rational goal - which is debatable philosophically, but undebatably what is selected for by natural selection). As a very trivial example, humans are instinctively aware of the need to urinate periodically. However, these types of behaviors play out largely unconsciously, and can at best be imperfectly regulated by "reason". In many species, such as insect species, it is likely that "biologically rational" behaviors are hard-wired and inflexible; conscious awareness presumably does not come into play (although we can't "know that for sure") and would be irrelevant if it did.

Many other human behaviors are dominated by instincts and emotions, and almost all are impacted by them. To be capable of logical thought is hardly the same thing as being "rational". Computers are, arguably, rational, albeit completely lacking inherent motivation. Humans are not, and by the theory of evolution, would not be expected to be. Creationism might posit perfectly rational humans, evolution predicts a layer of cognitive and behavioral flexibility, overlying a core set of instinctive and emotional responses.

Then you need:
7. Barking
and more likely:
8. Non-existent

Could it be that you're not aware you haven't actually derived/deduced any of those properties at all - let alone from anything real?

Santa Claus-ism (and Easter Bunny-ism and Tooth Fairy-ism) make specific "real-world" predictions which can be tested. Those predictions turn out to be false; therefore Santa Claus-ism has been falsified.

That's good new for Salvador Cordova. His wrong-headed views on biology can be laughably dismissed by the application of testable science. Change the focus to philosophy, and he's on his feet for many rounds longer.

Just because Santa doesn't show up on Christmas doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

— ts

Timothy Sandefur and others say that people with religion are simply intellectually dishonest. What am I to do, other than interpret that as an assertion that people with religion are wrong? At the very least it asserts that people with religion are somehow inferior to those who lack it.

It is an intrinsic property of Santa Claus that he shows up on Christmas to give gifts to children

ts,

Is it possible that you have made the assumption that the main use people have had for religion in the past was its explanatory power, but that now it is no longer needed, since science and thechnology have come a long way to explain natural phenomena?

I would argue that people seek religion more for comfort, stability, and sort of a solid foundation, than for logical reasons, or for its explanatory power of the natural world. Sure, it's nice if they can tie explanations in that fit in with natural observation, but this is not the main reason people embrace religion. I just wondered if you had considered that, and if you thought it important.

Abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence if and when we can reasonably expect evidence should be observed if a claim is true.

— Osmo

For instance, the lack of gravitational effect provides us with some reason to think there isn't a planet between Earth and Mars.

— Osmo

Is it possible that you have made the assumption that the main use people have had for religion in the past was its explanatory power, but that now it is no longer needed, since science and thechnology have come a long way to explain natural phenomena?

I would argue that people seek religion more for comfort, stability, and sort of a solid foundation, than for logical reasons, or for its explanatory power of the natural world.

Sure, it's nice if they can tie explanations in that fit in with natural observation, but this is not the main reason people embrace religion. I just wondered if you had considered that, and if you thought it important.

"Sorry, but your intellectual skills are inferior. Boo hoo hoo."

Hello Panda's Thumb.

Congratulations on the improvement in mature intellectual discourse that has characterized this blog in the past few weeks.

Evidence is not observed. Data is observed. Evidence is the support from data given a model assumed to produce that data (i.e. evidence is an interpretation). This is why absence of evidence is never evidence for anything. If you have no data, there can be no evidence for anything, period. If you have data and a model supposedly explaining it, then there can be evidence. (Technically, you need at least two models to choose between for there to be evidence from a given data set, but that is a different discussion.)

Or to put it another way, people tend to use the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to construe the term "evidence" too narrowly. To pick an easy example, our absence of a set of supporting observations for the Loch Ness Monster does provide some evidence for the position "The Loch Ness Monster does not exist". I have no problem imagining, or in this case recalling, people saying, "Aha!, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

Those are the people I had in mind.

Yes, certainly. If people simply sought religion as a source of explanation, then there wouldn't be so much emotional baggage attached. It's like political debates, which aren't simply disagreements on the facts.

I don't accept all the extraneous stuff they added with Omega Point Theory and the Ultimate Computer.

— Cordova

'Regarding Barrow and Tipler, the prestigious journal Nature said of their work:

In fact, I could summarize my point up even more clearly. "Failure to observe something is evidence against a position in certain circumstances,"

— Osmo

I think you are dragging the semantics of that phrase beyond its typical intent. I think when this phrase was used here (and elsewhere, what was meant by "absense of evidence" is lack of confirming observations. This phrase is used in circumstances in which there do not exist positive confirming observations, but offered as a reminder that this shouldn't be taken to mean this is evidence against a particular position - such as extraterristrial life existing.

— Osmo

(3)we don't know what at least one of the hypotheses in question specifically predicts about the data under consideration

Since you see that religion is mainly emotional and although there can be rational thought inolved, it is mostly not really based on rational thought, then why bother to talk people out of it using reasoning and logic? Why try to talk people out of it in the first place?

What is gained by taking away another's source of comfort(perhaps the only source), if you are succesfull?

I assume the phrase to which you refer is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which is semantically and logically valid.

Evil is a problem for those who would claim to know the mind of God, who would understand his motives, and who would assign him the role of "omnipotent, omnibenevolent protector". For those who acknowledge that God is ineffable, that every person's experience with God is unique, and that true knowledge of him is impossible, the existance of evil does not have to be "explained" any more than we have to explain the existance of beetles.

But is it credible that such extremities of torture should be necessary for us? Well, take your choice. The tortures occur. If they are unnecessary, then there is no God or a bad one. If there is a good God, then these tortures are necessary. For no even moderately good Being could possibly inflict or permit them if they weren't

Absence of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment is a thing helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment of absence?

More to the point, how does one ignore an absence of evidence? Can someone show me how rationally to ignore nothing?

Look, we're having an intellectual discussion. If you're afraid of losing your source of comfort, then hide your eyes or something.

I apologize for interrupting your intellectual discussion, which does not really interest me anyway.

Absence of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment is a thing helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment of absence?

More to the point, how does one ignore an absence of evidence?

Can someone show me how rationally to ignore nothing?

Congratulations on the improvement in mature intellectual discourse that has characterized this blog in the past few weeks.

"Yes. For instance, absence of the sorts of things that would help in concluding that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program is helpful in concluding that he didn't."

Or perhaps, absence of the sorts of things that would help in concluding that Saddam Hussein had no active WMD program is helpful in concluding that he did?

"By not taking it into account as part of one's deliberative process."

Can you show me how to deliberate rationally given no evidence?

Or perhaps, absence of the sorts of things that would help in concluding that Saddam Hussein had no active WMD program is helpful in concluding that he did?

Can you show me how to deliberate rationally given no evidence?

'Extraneous stuff' is a rather bizarre description considering that the Omega Point Theory was integral to the final anthropic principle and is where divinity (and people rising from the dead,) actually comes into it; it is through the acceleration of information efficiency to infinity that omnipresence and omnipotence are supposed to transpire. So I severely doubt you've even read any of the books we're talking about. They have bugger all to do with a designer of the universe.

science offers a surer path than religion in the search for God

Davies: It would be foolish to deny that many of the traditional religious ideas about God, man and the nauture of the universe have been swept away by the new physics. But our search has turned up many positive signs too. The existence of mind, for example, as an abstract, holistic, oraganizational pattern, capable even of disembodiment, refutes the reductionistic philosophy that we are all nothing but moving mounds of atoms.

"Yes, absence of absence of evidence of WMDs would be evidence of WMDs."

Only if absence of evidence of WMDs is the sort of things that help in concluding that Saddam Hussein had no active WMD programs. But this is the point of contention. Thus, you still have not addressed whether an absence of evidence that Saddam Hussein had no active WMD programs is helpful in concluding that he did have active WMD programs. After all, wasn't this the sort of logic that the Bush administration applied in going to war in Iraq?

"As long as you're alive, there's evidence."

So I am alive. I wish to deliberate rationally on God. How do I proceed?

Davies: It would be foolish to deny that many of the traditional religious ideas about God, man and the nauture of the universe have been swept away by the new physics. But our search has turned up many positive signs too. The existence of mind, for example, as an abstract, holistic, oraganizational pattern, capable even of disembodiment, refutes the reductionistic philosophy that we are all nothing but moving mounds of atoms.

Thus, you still have not addressed whether an absence of evidence that Saddam Hussein had no active WMD programs is helpful in concluding that he did have active WMD programs.

So I am alive. I wish to deliberate rationally on God. How do I proceed?

This appears to be special pleading on your part, ts. If the conclusion that there were no WMDs is warranted by the absence of evidence of WMDs, then it is analogously valid to conclude that there are active WMD programs from the absence of evidence of inactive WMD programs. The factual record illustrates the application of this logic quite vividly.

"The same way you would deliberate rationally on invisible and immaterial pink unicorns, I suppose."

Which is how?

They gave this guy an award for this ignorant drivel?

This appears to be special pleading on your part, ts. If the conclusion that there were no WMDs is warranted by the absence of evidence of WMDs, then it is analogously valid to conclude that there are active WMD programs from the absence of evidence of inactive WMD programs.

"The same way you would deliberate rationally on invisible and immaterial pink unicorns, I suppose." Which is how?

The simple fact is that the conclusion that there were no WMDs is warranted by the absence of evidence of WMDs.

— ts

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence because it's irrational to simply ignore an absence of evidence.

— ts

Here's a rational argument that theism will keep you out of heaven:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html

The simple fact is that the conclusion that there were no WMDs is warranted by the absence of evidence of WMDs. This is faulty logic.

One can only conclude there are no WMDs from evidence for no WMDs (not from an absence of evidence).

As I already pointed out, your assertion "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is logically inconsistent.

Perhaps you should read my posts before responding to them?

ts: The simple fact is that the conclusion that there were no WMDs is warranted by the absence of evidence of WMDs. Douglas: This is faulty logic. ts: You've offered no reason to think so.

It doesn't do to "point out" that something is logically inconsistent, you must prove it.

— ts

ts: Yes, absence of absence of evidence of WMDs would be evidence of WMDs. Lurker: Can you show me how to deliberate rationally given no evidence? ts: As long as you're alive, there's evidence.

"Wistfully looking back to the days of Heddle and DaveScot?"
Yes.

We are so gonna lose . . .

I gave the trivial proof in the very post you responded to. As I said, perhaps you should actually read my posts before responding to them?

So, first you make an assertion about the importance of what is entailed when evidence does not exist, then you immediately claim that evidence always exists? Do you really not see the self-contradiction here?

We are so gonna lose ...

"Absence of evidence is [sometimes] evidence of absence", is self-contradictory, since in the first part the presence of evidence is denied and then in the second part its presence is affirmed.

In the first case it was evidence for a specific thing; in the second case lurker didn't qualify what it was evidence of, thus making it universal, and thus my answer. Duh.

— ts

I see nothing resembling a proof there

— ts

Evidence cannot be absent and exist simultaneously. Thus the statement is inconsistent.

Sanchez has some comments on this whole debacle.

In the first case it was evidence for a specific thing; in the second case lurker didn't qualify what it was evidence of, thus making it universal, and thus my answer. Duh. Universal claims apply to all specific instances. Thus the inconsistency

As I said earlier, lack of evidence for the existence of something IS evidence (not proof, of course) of the non-existence of that something.

It is ALWAYS evidence, never proof, as a universal negative existential claim cannot be proven. That's why the burden of proof is on the party making positive existential claims.

Otherwise, the less evidence we had for something, the more unassailable such a claim would become. Are there Invisible Pink Unicorns flitting around us? Why not? Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster ruling over the universe with His Noodly Appendage? Why not? Ando so on, ad nauseam.

This is elementary logic, people. Come to terms with it, and stop hiding behind faulty reasoning and special pleading.

As I said earlier, lack of evidence for the existence of something IS evidence (not proof, of course) of the non-existence of that something.

""inactive WMD programs"? What the heck would that have to do with a conclusion about "active WMD programs"?"

Exactly, ts. My construction of this analogy is as much a non sequitur as yours. "No WMD programs"? WTF does that have to do with an "absence of evidence of WMDs?"

"I already agreed that it would be valid to conclude that there were WMD programs from the absence of evidence that would lead to one conclude that there were no WMD programs."

Well, hindsight always permits retrospective applications of data that are conveniently supportive of any conclusion we may have drawn after the fact. The more poignant demonstration of this logic is in the prewar scenario. The Bush administration has an absence of evidence that Saddam had no WMD programs. It concludes, therefore, that Saddam had WMD programs.

"But that evidence wasn't absent --- we did have such evidence, namely the absence of any WMDs anywhere we looked."

This, as Douglas points out, is absurd. You simultaneously reject that there is evidence, while in the same breath claim there is an absence of evidence. If we looked, then we have positive data about the presence of WMDs at specific locations in Iraq. Because Iraq is a finite land mass, the act of eliminating places of possible WMD sites is contributing positively to our knowledge of whether in fact Saddam had no WMDs. Thus, your example is actually not relevant to the point in discussion. The better example would be my pre-war scenario in which the Bush administration concluded Saddam's WMD program in the absence of searching, or any other source of evidence for an active WMD program. If Bush didn't even bother to look, then he had no evidence. Clearly, in such a scenario, this logic is faulty and provides bad guidance.

"Think about the meaning of the words, recognize that they can't refer to anything, and go on to do something more productive."

... or in other words:

"simply ignore an absence of evidence." In other words, you are advocating irrationality here. The exercise that you have proposed -- namely, recognizing that a word can't refer to anything and then running away -- is hardly deliberation. It merely requires a subjective, summary judgment from a closed mind.

We can try this exercise on a number of different words. What does "deliberation" refer to? Can you show me your deliberation in writing your last post to me? Or can someone show me what "infinity" refers to? Infinity happens in a lot of engineering and mathematical analyses. How about an example of a "geometric point"? None of these conceptual words have any evidentiary sources attached.

You are advocating positivism. And not doing a very good job of it. So back to the question you dodged: How do I recognize that God does not refer to anything?

"Absence of evidence is [sometimes] evidence of absence", is self-contradictory, since in the first part the presence of evidence is denied and then in the second part its presence is affirmed. If this is what Theobald intends as a "trivial proof", it is trivially invalid --- the two instances of "evidence" refer to evidence for two different things, one the negation of the other, so of course evidence is first denied and then confirmed. The sentence means that absence of evidence for P is [sometimes] evidence for not P. Duh.

Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster ruling over the universe with His Noodly Appendage? Why not?

""inactive WMD programs"? What the heck would that have to do with a conclusion about "active WMD programs"?" Exactly, ts. My construction of this analogy is as much a non sequitur as yours. "No WMD programs"? WTF does that have to do with an "absence of evidence of WMDs?"

"As I said earlier, lack of evidence for the existence of something IS evidence (not proof, of course) of the non-existence of that something."

Aureola, consider ts's response to me:

"As long as you're alive, there's evidence."

It would seem to me that your notion of "lack of evidence" is never realized -- namely you always have evidence. A person making a positive claim without providing evidence has done exactly that: provided no evidence. That you would consider that to be an argument for non-existence is to put additional non-evidential considerations on the validity of his claim. You may have good evidence to be skeptical of the person, for instance, because he is a persistent liar. In the end, you still not have any evidence that the claim is in fact false. For instance, consider the boy who cries wolf.

"You should go back to lurking; you make more sense when you're silent."

Where is your evidence for this claim? I guess given an absence of evidence, I have to conclude that I shouldn't go back to lurking.

Manual trackback:

"Becoming what you most dislike" on Telic Thoughts

It would seem to me that your notion of "lack of evidence" is never realized --- namely you always have evidence.

What's interesting is how [some] ID critics for years have been talking as if Phillip Johnson's views on the relationship between evolution and religion are hopelessly wrong, yet here we find Paul the scientist saying the same as Phil the creationist.

— Krauze

"Since AN stated that lack of evidence is in fact evidence of something, then of course she would agree that she always has evidence (of something), since she always has lack of evidence (of something else)."

You cannot expect me to "get" what is patently absurd. The idea of "lack of evidence" becomes under your formulation as devoid of substance as some fundamentalists' notion of "God." The skeptic says, I can show there is no God. The believer retorts, sure, but by doing so you will have demonstrated God.

Anyway, I cannot in good conscience continues this discussion with you, given that I would be aiding in your single-handed mission to destroy the value of Panda's Thumb as a pro-science, pro-reasoning community.

Sanchez has some comments on this whole debacle.

I cannot in good conscience continues this discussion

Are there Invisible Pink Unicorns flitting around us? Why not? Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster ruling over the universe with His Noodly Appendage? Why not?

Gladly:

Are there Invisible Pink Unicorns flitting around us?

I don't know. I reserve judgment until I see the evidence.

Why not?

I don't know. I reserve judgment until I see the evidence.

Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster ruling over the universe with His Noodly Appendage?

I don't know. I reserve judgment until I see the evidence.

Why not?

I don't know. I reserve judgment until I see the evidence.

Are there Invisible Pink Unicorns flitting around us? I don't know. I reserve judgment until I see the evidence.

As Isaac Asimov said, "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

Equivocation over the word "evidence" is quite transparent in some recent posts. Absence of evidence is NOT proof of absence, and neither ts nor I (nor Isaac Asimov) claimed this.

Absence of evidence, however, IS evidence of absence. Subject to revision if/when new, contrasting evidence were to surface. To rational minds, at least.

Absence of evidence, however, IS evidence of absence.

"Absence of evidence is NOT proof of absence..."

I agree. Nor is absence of proof evidence of absence.

"Absence of evidence, however, IS evidence of absence. Subject to revision if/when new, contrasting evidence were to surface. To rational minds, at least."

You are right. There is an equivocation of the notion of evidence. The second "evidence" in that sentence is clearly being given a weaker notion than the one in the first part of the sentence. It is evidence only if you already have a mental model that expects an absence of evidence. It is helpful in reaching a conclusion that you have already preconceived.

The first notion of evidence is positivist. Preferrably, such evidence is of the quality that any reasonable person can independently deduce it as a positive example of what is hypothesized. The second notion is subjective. A person with the a priori committment to expect positive evidence will find nothing of value in a current lack of evidence. On the other hand, a person with an a priori committment towards expecting no evidence will find another type of value.

For instance, a gambler hypothesizes that there exists a lottery number destined for him alone that will grant him the jackpot. Yet every number he has tried fails to get him the jackpot -- here is as of yet an absence of evidence of his lottery number. Still, for the gambler, this is hardly evidence that his lottery number doesn't exist.

The fact of the matter, however, is that absence of evidence cannot help to establish which mental model is right: the mental model that expects no evidence, or the mental model that expects other evidence to be found. As you say, it is subject to further contrasting evidence. Therefore, the argument "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is inherently vague and useless.

Lurker:

no, you are mistaken. We are referring to existential claims here: the evidence that is lacking for the existence of something is exactly of the same kind of the evidence that is not lacking for the non-existence of that same something.

I have no preconceived expectation: gods may or may not exist. Then I take a good, hard look and see no evidence whatsoever FOR their existence. Ergo, I fall back on the default position: Santa Claus, Yahweh, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Sauron, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Chthulhu, etc. are most likely non-existing.

And no amount of hand-waving on your part can change this. What could change this is some evidence of existence of at least one of these guys/gals/beings/whatever.

In the meantime, please excuse me for not trying to find the gold pot at the end of the rainbow.

For instance, a gambler hypothesizes that there exists a lottery number destined for him alone that will grant him the jackpot. Yet every number he has tried fails to get him the jackpot --- here is as of yet an absence of evidence of his lottery number. Still, for the gambler, this is hardly evidence that his lottery number doesn't exist.

"Ergo, I fall back on the default position: Santa Claus, Yahweh, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Sauron, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Chthulhu, etc. are most likely non-existing."

That is exactly my point. It is *your* default position. My point is that it does not have to be anybody else's. Nor does everyone else have to classify the unevidenced ideas or to react to them the same way you have.

"In the meantime, please excuse me for not trying to find the gold pot at the end of the rainbow."

Again, exactly my point. You have every right to decide not to look.

In the meantime, please excuse me for not trying to find the gold pot at the end of the rainbow.

My point is that it does not have to be anybody else's.

Lurker:

please let me know when you'll be holding your next human sacrifice to appease Quetzalcoatl, whose existence or non-existence are equally likely to you.

In case this reductio ad absurdum is too sophisticated for you, let me rephrase that: you are lying. You don't believe in the existence of 99.9% of the entities which we have no evidence for, and neither does anybody else.

That's why I called it, right at the start, a case of Special Pleading; because the pretense is that what holds for Santa Claus, Zeus, and the pixies in your backyard, should not hold for similarly non-apparent entities like Yahweh, Allah, or Jehovah.

Yes, I have no ritualistic committments to any entity whose existence is in doubt. But the point of the argument is that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is useless and false. It is therefore a non sequitur that the lack of evidence an entity requires me there to make committments to it.

Do you believe in the existence of an "infinity" or a "geometric point" that the rest of the natural sciences employ regularly? Do you have any evidence for those concepts?

I have to say, positivism is an ugly philosophy. You guys are not very good at promoting it.

And it is a strawman that "the lack of evidence [for] an entity requires me to make commitments to it."

That's not what we said. You are once again equivocating between the meaning of evidence and the meaning of proof, throwing in an irrelevant reference to mathematics, and in general doing an extremely poor job of confronting my argument.

But that's all right, I understand. You're not the first confused thinker who grasps at irrelevant straws to rescue his pet notion from fundamental logical flaws.

For those interested in learning about positivism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Isn't the point that people DON'T believe in Santa Claus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Sauron?

Each of these entities would leave physical evidence! An invisible unicorn, Santa Claus, etc, would all leave physical evidence.

But, suppose under that Christmas tree, there were presents appearing. But, there were no parents either. Now what?

Ben:

How do you know that an Invisible Pink Unicorn would leave physical evidence? Maybe she's "spiritual"!

As to the presents, their appearance on Christmas mornings is evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. That's exactly why parents tend to fake surprise when the kids discover the presents!

However, eventually kids grow up a little and find a much simpler explanation for the presents appearing... by that time, said kids have usually learned to behave without the threat of "Santa will bring you a big lump of coal if you don't do what I say!"

"How do you know that an Invisible Pink Unicorn would leave physical evidence? Maybe she's "spiritual"!"

Then the "pink" (physical property?) unicorn wouldn't be invisible, it would be immaterial.

"As to the presents, their appearance on Christmas mornings is evidence for the existence of Santa Claus."

Presents under the tree isn't rightly evidence for anything. The problem is the presents, the answer is either parents or Santa Claus. Without evience for parents or santa claus, there is no basis for either. In this example, we already know it's the parents, and we know of their existence.

But, in the case of the invisible unicorn, say we see tracks being left. We feel something there. Maybe there IS an invisible pink unicorn. of course, the point is there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and there has to be answers offered.

Yeah, so we should shut up because we're helping the enemy. Sorry, but no.

Ben:

First of all, "pink" is only a physical property in a materialistic, aunicornist prejudiced worldview. You must shed your preconceptions about "pink" merely being a colour! In reality, it is more of an emotion...

I hope you see my point.

Normally, in reality (you know, that thing that when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away), if there are no parents and no other people to take their role, no presents appear. That's powerful evidence against Santa being a real guy, IMO.

"You don't believe in the existence of 99.9% of the entities which we have no evidence for, and neither does anybody else."

Nor do I disbelieve 99.9% of the entities for which there is no evidence. You may accuse me of lying, but only at cost to your own credibility. I simply have a preferred method for dealing with specific topics for which I have no evidence... which usually entails not rendering a judgment on such issues. Most of the time, I am not even aware of the things for which I have no evidence of. So it seems strange to me that you somehow know what I would think about the infinitely many unknowns.

What strikes me as odd is that this discussion about the truth of a universal claim -- absence of evidence is the evidence of absence -- has become a policy discussion. That is the strawman. An absence of evidence does not require me to act in any specific regard. More specifically, it does not require me to formulate a conclusion as though I had evidence. Of course, one can choose to draw unfounded conclusions in the total absence of evidence. But apparently, even the total absence of evidence is still evidence. This is AN's absurd notion of a "default" position, his unfounded notion that his default position must be applied universally. Where is the evidence for that? Once again, positivist thinking backfires. To relabel my position as "special pleading" is to construct a strawman that there is only one possible universal position on unevidenced objects. As a policy, AN is in no position to dictate to me on how I treat things which may not exist. For instance, I do not know of the existence of a geometric point. But I certainly cannot dispense with geometric points in my line of work. Similarly, for theists, there may be a dearth of evidence for God (though even theists would dispute that claim), but that does not mean that in the meanwhile, God is an indispensable concept for these people.

To have evidence, as Douglas points out, is to apply a given model to data from observation. The slight-of-hand magic behind "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is that the model changes. In the former, there is no a priori committment to the existence of a hypothetical object. In the latter, however, evidence of absence is possible only if such absence can be meaningfully evidenced. This requires that in principle the evidence of an absence is consistent with some models for the absence of hypothetical being at hand. Otherwise, unmeaningful evidence is hardly evidence. Ask yourself, for instance, what contrasting evidence would you expect for a God that does not reveal Himself physically, versus a God that does not exist? Without such consideration, prima facie, the assertion "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is semantically contradictory.

Ironically, this all started when I asked ts how to deliberate rationally given an absence of evidence, since he believes it illogical to ignore such absence of evidence. As we see, the solution to such positivist thinking, is an unfounded a priori committment to the notion that only that which is evidenced can exist. In other words, the solution is nothing more than a personal preference to make the hypothetical entity go away. What is the evidence for elevating such preference to a universal truth? None... so far. I guess in the meantime, I should take that to mean that there is evidence of an absence of such a truth.

Well, ts and AN have wasted enough of my time on this thread for this week. I have found it worthwhile. Back to lurking.

Yup. Just as I wrote elsewhere. You're more interested in asserting your intellectual superiority than winning.

— Adam

"Normally, in reality (you know, that thing that when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away), if there are no parents and no other people to take their role, no presents appear. That's powerful evidence against Santa being a real guy, IMO."

Unfortunately, the problems of philosophy are not going away. I wish it were this simple.

"First of all, "pink" is only a physical property in a materialistic, aunicornist prejudiced worldview. You must shed your preconceptions about "pink" merely being a colour! In reality, it is more of an emotion...

I hope you see my point."

I do not see your point, sorry. I do not think you see mine.

Isn't the point that people DON'T believe in Santa Claus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Sauron?

Each of these entities would leave physical evidence! An invisible unicorn, Santa Claus, etc, would all leave physical evidence.

But, suppose under that Christmas tree, there were presents appearing. But, there were no parents either. Now what?

Lurker:

equating believing with disbelieving is an elementary mistake. For all your voluminous smokescreen, you are rather pathetic at actually understanding an argument and responding to it.

As I said, you're not the first and you certainly won't be the last. I'm rather used at people trying to argue for this fake "balancing" of belief and unbelief.

Take care, and be careful, lest you stumble on an invisible leprechaun.

"Uh, the point to what? The real point is why they don't."

They do not exist because they have physical properties and there is no physical evidence. In fact, the physical evidence flies in their faces.

"Uh, set up a video camera?"

I think you would need to do this to see there were no parents in the first place.

Unfortunately, the problems of philosophy are not going away. I wish it were this simple.

I do not see your point, sorry. I do not think you see mine.

"Take care, and be careful, lest you stumble on an invisible leprechaun."

If someone were to happen to stumble on one, it would exist right? But I have stumbled on a rock before... OK, there's the entity that needs explaining.

"What problems are you referring to?"

Come now, you've heard of philosophical problemd before, haven't you?

"What problems are you referring to?"

Come now, you've heard of philosophical problems before, haven't you?

"Uh, the point to what? The real point is why they don't." They do not exist because they have physical properties and there is no physical evidence. In fact, the physical evidence flies in their faces.

"Uh, set up a video camera?" I think you would need to do this to see there were no parents in the first place.

"What problems are you referring to?" Come now, you've heard of philosophical problems before, haven't you?

""they" in my first sentence referred to people who don't believe in things. "they" in your sentence refers to the things not believed in. so your statement is a non sequitur."

I misunderstood your usage. In any case, my response cuts to the main point of why people exist that don't believe in invisible unicorns.

"You asserted there were no parents. And you asked what to do next, and I offered an answer.

I feel like I'm having a conversation with Eliza, sigh."

Don't know who Eliza is, but keep up the snobbery, it works well. The correct thing to do next, however, is not to set up a video camera. Santa Claus and Parents would exhaust the possibilities here because we are only considering two possible explanations (one that signifies a supernatural and one natural).

Ben:

My point is that, given sufficient wiggle space, NO existential claim can EVER be discounted. For instance, you tried to pin down the Invisible Pink Unicorn by attributing a specific value to the word "pink". I did what a lot of theists usually do, took the word and changed its meaning.

That's why the default position with any existential claim is disbelief. While a universal negative can never be proven, it is trivially easy to prove a positive existential claim: just cough up an example of the object claimed to exist!

So, if I claim that an Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, it is up to ME to demonstrate its existence, not to YOU to prove its non-existence. Otherwise, we are justified in discounting the claim as yet another fantasy. Really, this is Logic 101.

When you replace the Invisible Pink Unicorn with certain other invisibles, however, all hell breaks loose, and the Special Pleading begins.

When you replace the Invisible Pink Unicorn with certain other invisibles, however, all hell breaks loose, and the Special Pleading begins.

I feel like I'm having a conversation with Eliza, sigh.

"My point is that, given sufficient wiggle space, NO existential claim can EVER be discounted."

Yes. I understood this from the beginning. But my claim is that such an existential claim does not even exist unless there is a problem that needs answers. To cut the the point; as Antony Flew now says, we have no answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing. Hence, the problem: something exists. Two considered solutions: theism or atheism. If we have no evidence for theism, or atheism, we still have a problem. Thus, in light of no evidence, there can only be agnosticism, not atheism. But wait, one might suggest that I'm already considering the existence of anything as evidence for God. But as of yet, I am not. Of course, I do not think there is no positive evidence either.

"It had gone from them (lurker and Ben) simply being extremely defective thinkers at you"

They didn't even understand what I was saying... I can't even consider how that counts for defective thinking on my part. Such ad hominems don't count for anything in light of a real discussion.

Ben:

You continue the line of reasoning of Lurker that equated belief with disbelief. I'm sorry, that is a mistake.

Atheism is not the polar opposite of theism. It is a lack of belief in something which we have no evidence for.

Of course, you're perfectly free to "neither believe nor disbelieve", if you manage to find a way to do so. Only, don't insist that this is particularly rational.

Ben:

I don't know about ts, but I didn't understand what you were saying because you were extremely unclear in what you were saying. Do you know what a "false dichotomy" is?

To cut the the point; as Antony Flew now says, we have no answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing. Hence, the problem: something exists.

Two considered solutions: theism or atheism.

If we have no evidence for theism, or atheism, we still have a problem.

Thus, in light of no evidence, there can only be agnosticism, not atheism.

But wait, one might suggest that I'm already considering the existence of anything as evidence for God. But as of yet, I am not. Of course, I do not think there is no positive evidence either.

"Atheism is not the polar opposite of theism. It is a lack of belief in something which we have no evidence for."

REALLY? I would have had no clue from the word itself! A (without, a lack of) theism (belief in God)!

"Of course, you're perfectly free to "neither believe nor disbelieve", if you manage to find a way to do so. Only, don't insist that this is particularly rational."

Is it warranted? Not without ANY evidence either way. Think about it. Theism provides an answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Atheism provides no such answer, as Antony Flew attests. But, given no grounds for theism, we STILL need a solution. I must hold off any belief either way.

"I don't know about ts, but I didn't understand what you were saying because you were extremely unclear in what you were saying. Do you know what a "false dichotomy" is?"

No, I've never heard of a false dichotomy! Please explain it for me!

Perhaps you are insisting that there is another option in considering God's existence? He does or does not exist. False dichotomy? I am not warranted to make a decision of whether he exists or not in light of no evidence. But, I do think we have good reasons for thinking he exists (yet this is not relevent to the discussion because it has nothing to do with warranted belief in general).

They didn't even understand what I was saying...

I can't even consider how that counts for defective thinking on my part.

Such ad hominems don't count for anything in light of a real discussion.

Cordova said: Comment #42729 I mean the author of Origin of Species was really versant in...information theory (NOT),

"I don't follow the "thus" at all, and you apparently mean "weak atheism, not strong atheism", but really hardly anyone is a strong atheist."

Depends on what you mean by weak atheism.

Ben:

You are free not to decide whether god(s) exist(s) or not. Which means you do NOT believe god(s) exist. As simple as that.

Please, please, stop insisting that atheism claims no gods exist. Atheism is, at a minimum (i.e., the part shared by all atheists), the lack of belief in god(s). You said this was clear to you. So, why are you conflating this, which is the core of atheism, with "strong" atheism? If this is not a strawman, what else is it?

"Presents under the tree isn't rightly evidence for anything. The problem is the presents, the answer is either parents or Santa Claus. Without evience for parents or santa claus, there is no basis for either."

This contrived example of yours, that does not occur in reality, was a false dichotomy, like it or not. You were artifically limiting the alternatives to two and only two.

You seem to be familiar with the terminology of logic, but rather stumbling in its application.

"Atheism is not the polar opposite of theism. It is a lack of belief in something which we have no evidence for." REALLY? I would have had no clue from the word itself! A (without, a lack of) theism (belief in God)!

Theism provides an answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

Atheism provides no such answer, as Antony Flew attests. But, given no grounds for theism, we STILL need a solution.

I must hold off any belief either way.

". Atheism is, at a minimum (i.e., the part shared by all atheists), the lack of belief in god(s). You said this was clear to you. So, why are you conflating this, which is the core of atheism, with "strong" atheism? If this is not a strawman, what else is it?"

I already made a disticiton between agnosticism and atheism in a prior post. But, I still can't be sure what you mean by weak atheism. I THINK you mean what I meant what I said agnosticism (a weak version, not a strong one that says we cannot know about God no matter what). But, I have no idea.

"This contrived example of yours, that does not occur in reality, was a false dichotomy, like it or not. You were artifically limiting the alternatives to two and only two.

You seem to be familiar with the terminology of logic, but rather stumbling in its application."

No, I still think you were just missing my analogy. It was, again, if God does or does not exist. I think our misunderstanding might come from different terminology concerning atheism/agnosticism. Not sure...

To be clear, if weak atheism is simply a lack of belief in God but also a lack of commitment to the claim that he certainly does not exist, then I agree that it's called for in light of no evidence whatsoever.

Maybe I've got an inkling of what Ben's getting at with his disconnected bits and pieces and bunches of unstated assumptions.

The presents are the "something" (the universe), Santa is God, and the parents are a natural means of creation.
So, what if there's no evidence for God, and there's no evidence for a natural means of creation. Then what?
Well, this is a false dichotomy because
a) no evidence for God isn't mutually exclusive with no evidence for a natural creator
and
b) there are other possibilities, such a universe with infinite history, a closed space-time universe, or a universe that pops into existence for no reason at all

Also, if we separate the origin-of-the-universe question from the why-something-rather-than-nothing question,
there are other possibilities, such as the one I favor -- that all logically possible universes necessarily exist.
If all possible universes necessarily exist, then of course this one must.

But none of this interesting stuff about why-something-rather-than-nothing or how the universe might have originated has any bearing on the theism/atheism question because one answers it either by raw proclamation ("faith"), or by looking for evidence of God and judging whether there's adequate evidence to warrant belief, or by some sort of logical or semantic argument that there must be or must not be a God (I favor the latter because I think careful analysis indicates that there's no coherent concept of a "supernatural" entity -- which makes me one of those rare strong atheists, but only on Mondays).

Where atheism doesn't simply refer to a lack of belief in the existence of God, the term refers to a particular stance in cultural politics. Not believing in something is not usually a very strenuous undertaking. Most people don't believe in the Buddhist Dharma, for example, but you don't find them sitting around in suits on public access television promoting adharmacism. The trouble with making a big deal out of atheism is that the fuss creates the false impression that there is some philosophical or scientific reason to consider the God idea as a viable candidate explanation of the world and how it works instead of what taking it for what it is, something that belongs in an ethnographic museum along with the masks and baskets.

Aristotle recommended treating the people and their superstitions with light irony. Sounds about right to me.

To be clear, if weak atheism is simply a lack of belief in God but also a lack of commitment to the claim that he certainly does not exist, then I agree that it's called for in light of no evidence whatsoever.

The trouble with making a big deal out of atheism is that the fuss creates the false impression that there is some philosophical or scientific reason to consider the God idea as a viable candidate explanation of the world and how it works instead of what taking it for what it is, something that belongs in an ethnographic museum along with the masks and baskets.

Ben:

yes, that's what is normally called "weak" atheism, or "atheism" for short. Then you have atheists who also have red hair ("red-haired atheists"), atheists who also like strawberry ice cream ("strawberry-ice-cream-liking atheists"), atheists who also maintain that no gods whatsoever exist and they know it for a fact ("strong atheists"), and so on.

More seriously, there are atheists ("no belief in gods") and then there are atheists with some kind of qualifier added. What unifies all of us, the one trait we all share, is the lack of belief in god(s).

I'll let you choose how you want to be called (e.g., "agnostic") if you'll extend me the same courtesy, and accept the self-definition of atheists that atheists have been giving for centuries now.

"a) no evidence for God isn't mutually exclusive with no evidence for a natural creator"

I presume we might call this natural creator "God". If it could crate time but is beyond time then it would need a conscious self to do the act.

"b) there are other possibilities, such a universe with infinite history, a closed space-time universe, or a universe that pops into existence for no reason at all"

Yes, I am aware of such possibilities. I don't know it's worth it to debate here, but I find that an actual physical infinite (opposed to the useful mathematical concept) isn't possible. You come across basic logical impossibilities such as the Hilbert's Hotel example. A Universe that pops into existence for no reason at all seems to be a universe that comes from nothing, which most philosphers agree that nothing comes from nothing (i.e. Epicurus). And as for a closed universe, it depends on what you mean.

"Also, if we separate the origin-of-the-universe question from the why-something-rather-than-nothing question,
there are other possibilities, such as the one I favor --- that all logically possible universes necessarily exist.
If all possible universes necessarily exist, then of course this one must."

Doesn't this beg the question? That's just assuming that any possible universes don't need God as an explanation.

"I favor the latter because I think careful analysis indicates that there's no coherent concept of a "supernatural" entity --- which makes me one of those rare strong atheists, but only on Mondays)."

This is a totally separate problem, which of course I think isn't correct but I'm not ready to debate it here.

Okay, folks, twelve hour warning. Comments close tomorrow morning.

"a) no evidence for God isn't mutually exclusive with no evidence for a natural creator" I presume we might call this natural creator "God". If it could crate time but is beyond time then it would need a conscious self to do the act.

I find that an actual physical infinite (opposed to the useful mathematical concept) isn't possible. You come across basic logical impossibilities such as the Hilbert's Hotel example.

A Universe that pops into existence for no reason at all seems to be a universe that comes from nothing, which most philosphers agree that nothing comes from nothing (i.e. Epicurus).

And as for a closed universe, it depends on what you mean.

"If all possible universes necessarily exist, then of course this one must." Doesn't this beg the question? That's just assuming that any possible universes don't need God as an explanation.

"I favor the latter because I think careful analysis indicates that there's no coherent concept of a "supernatural" entity --- which makes me one of those rare strong atheists, but only on Mondays)." This is a totally separate problem, which of course I think isn't correct but I'm not ready to debate it here.

On Mondays, I think there are three kinds of people in the world:
1) Those who believe based on evidence;
2) Those who believe in the absence of evidence; and
3) Those who believe in defiance of the evidence.

Everyone here seems to accept the first group as a given, and reject the third as demented (which includes YECs and the like).

This thread seems to have split my second category into two subcategories:
2a) Those who believe in the absence of evidence which is in principle obtainable; and
2b) Those who believe even though evidence may not apply.

Finally, some here have subdivided 2a) into two MORE subcategories:
2a1) Those who believe in the absence of evidence which may someday be found, but probably not soon, or much of it, or very easily. This group might conceivably include those for whom existing evidence doesn't appear to point in any particular direction, or is unacceptably ambiguous.
2a2) Those who believe in the absence of what should surely be ample, stonkingly obvious evidence if the belief were in fact correct.

And finally, belief in gods is placed into this last category: something the veriest dunce could not doubt even for an instant, if there were in fact any gods. And the generic (by consensus) atheist, in our usage, refuses to credit 2a2)-type belief. Kind of like believing there is an elephant in the room, because there is no evidence of any elephant one way or the other. As Damon Runyan might have said, maybe you can't *prove* there's no elephant, but that's the way to bet.

Thanks, Flint, I'm saving that. :-) But ... it seems that, instead of "those who believe", it should be "beliefs that are", since all of us have beliefs that fit into different categories.

On Tuesdays, I recognize that my categories are not mutually exclusive.

On this thread and elsewhere I've observed grown-ups marshalling arguments to attack stories about talking snakes as if it made sense to debunk mythology with syllogisms. I'm in favor of simply dismissing theology, at least literalist theology, instead of lending it credit by acting as if it were something worth refuting.

Theobald: "Absence of evidence is [sometimes] evidence of absence", is self-contradictory, since in the first part the presence of evidence is denied and then in the second part its presence is affirmed. ts: If this is what Theobald intends as a "trivial proof", it is trivially invalid --- the two instances of "evidence" refer to evidence for two different things, one the negation of the other, so of course evidence is first denied and then confirmed. The sentence means that absence of evidence for P is [sometimes] evidence for not P. Duh. Theobald: Evidence cannot be absent and exist simultaneously. Thus the statement is inconsistent. ts: Of course it can. Evidence of the existence of God is absent and evidence of the existence of bananas exists. There's something really seriously wrong with you if you think the two instances of "evidence" in the aphorism refer to evidence for the same proposition.

"Absence of evidence is [sometimes] evidence of absence" means that if I search the room for an elephant and don't find one, that's evidence that there is no elephant in the room. The absence of evidence for an elephant is evidence that there is no elephant. If P is the hypothesis that there is an elephant in the room, the lack of evidence for P is evidence for not-P. This isn't a situation where "there is no evidence *about* P", it's a situation where there is no evidence *for* P.

There is lots of evidence that is *about* gods--all sorts of documents, testimony, and arguments. There is lots of evidence that is for the existence of gods (the existence of religions, religious documents, religious experience, philosophical arguments), and lots of evidence that is against the existence of gods (the existence of *contradictory* religions, naturalistic accounts of religion and religious experience, philosophical arguments).

Many (likely most) people who are theists are not theists on the basis of evidence or argument, but because they were raised in a particular culture. Many (perhaps most) people who are atheists are atheists on the basis of evidence or argument, and have adopted their viewpoint in spite of their culture.

"Absence of evidence is [sometimes] evidence of absence" means that if I search the room for an elephant and don't find one, that's evidence that there is no elephant in the room.

— Jim

Absence of evidence leads to an *inference* of absence. The only way to get evidence of absence is in situtations where in principle it is possible to obtain a proof of absence, namely where data can potentially come from a complete search. I agree with Douglas, that in such situtations, it is semantically incoherent to assert this is "absence of evidence." It is presence of evidence.

The logical positivist notion that only those things with evidence can exist or be meaningful has not been demonstrated to be necessary nor philosophically tenable.

As I wrote earlier, and which seems to have gotten buried:

An 'absence of evidence' can result for at least three reasons: (1) there is no applicable data at present, (2) the evidence is indecisive (e.g., the support for two competing hypotheses is more-or-less equivalent), and (3) we don't know what at least one of the hypotheses in question specifically predicts about the data under consideration. In any of the three cases, the adage "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is appropriate and true.

OTOH, when a model predicts certain types of data, and we search for that type of data and find instead another type, that is not 'absence of evidence'. Rather, this is the case where we have positive data which does not jibe with the hypothesis in question. It is the presence of evidence. The maxim "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" does not apply to this situation, and those who invoke it in this case are confused about the proper scientific meanings of 'evidence' and 'data'.

ts has given the layman definition of 'evidence' as "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment", which is fine. It should be obvious that, rationally, when evidence is absent, i.e. when we have nothing helpful in forming a conclusion, then we should suspend judgment and not form a conclusion.