Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A bottom-line issues exchange between MF and Paul Giem (et al) over prior probabilities . . . and the old “I see NO evidence” trick

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the How is ID Different thread, we can see a very significant exchange well worth headlining as it lays out what is at stake:

MF, 28:  . . . Why is my prior for a Christian God effectively zero? Because I see zero evidence for it. What is the probability of something existing for which there is no evidence? I would say that it is effectively zero given the infinite range of things that might exist but for which there is no evidence. By effectively zero I mean that rationally it should be discounted as a possibility and that it is lower than any number you can give – although it is conceivable so I am reluctant to say categorically it is zero . . . . Let’s put it more simply. If there is to be some reason for hypothesing an explanation for the origin of life then there has to be some reason for supposing that explanation exists other than it was capable creating life.

In context, this is a two-fer. For, in effect the demand is not to allow a material possibility of a designing intelligence (and especially, the God of Judaeo-Christian theism as a candidate) then allow empirical evidence and tested reliable signs of its activity such as Functionally Specific Complex Organisation and/or Information (FSCO/I) to speak as evidence:

csi_defn

Nope, you must have separate, independent evidence and “definitions” acceptable to arbitrarily high barriers set by patent selective hyperskepticism and rhetoric of obfuscation.

This raises obvious, serious questions of motives driving arguments and attitudes.

So, we see immediate responses:

UB, 29: . . . you simply accept zero evidence for design in nature.

It is not that coherent evidence is not there, and it is not that you are unaware of it.

You simply choose to deny it, and have stated so.

And Joe:

Joe, 30: It is very telling that [MF] is too afraid to post the prior probabilities for materialism and evolutionism. I say it is because there isn’t any evidence for any prior probabilities for such a nonsensical position

T2, also weighs in, with HeKS endorsing:

T2, 31: From a strictly agnostic point of view, why would you not consider that the classical empirically based cosmological arguments for causation would not provide an evidential basis for non-zero priors?

But, perhaps the most significant response comes from Paul Giem, giving a telling response in the language of Bayesian subjective probability estimation:

PG,  33: >> Thank you for your honesty. You are unwilling to put the Christian God’s prior at exactly zero, because that sounds (and is) dogmatic. But you need to make it a very tiny number in order to overcome the high improbability of life arising spontaneously. We can now see what drives your position. I won’t argue further.

To the rest,

Note what is happening. Mark called for a Bayesian analysis. That is appropriate. He noted that the priors are very important. He is right. For him, the priors are doing all the work. What he wanted to do is to say that with low enough priors, one can ignore the evidence against life arising spontaneously. He is right. What he didn’t want to come out and say, but has now, is that in order for the final evidence to come out his way (low posterior probability that any intelligence, including the Christian God, some other God or gods, or aliens, produced life), the priors have to be infinitesimal.

One can run the Bayesian analysis in reverse. If

P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/P(E),

(The final probability of the hypothesis given the evidence is equal to the probability of the evidence happening given the hypothesis, multiplied by the probability of the hypothesis happening before the evidence was looked at, divided by the probability of the evidence happening),

that means that

P(H) = P(H|E)*P(E)/P(E|H)

If we put some numbers to that, P(E), the probability that life exists in a given universe, assuming that God is reasonably likely to create life and that life is improbable in a godless universe, is just about equal to H if H >> (1-H), and thus

P(1-H|E) = approximately P(1-H)/PE|H)

That means that if the probability of life existing by spontaneous generation is 10^-300, an extremely liberal (large) number, then for the probability of God or aliens to be reasonably remote (say, 1%), and thus the probability for an atheist position being 99%, or effectively 1 – 10^-2, the prior for no intelligent design has to be 1 – 10^-302, and the prior probability of intelligent design has to be 10^-302. That sounds ridiculous, and certainly not a rational position, but that has the weakness that if we discover that the real probability of life arising by chance is 10^-600 instead, the probability of the chance hypothesis now goes down to 10^-298. That is why he didn’t want to say the prior probability; he didn’t want to explicitly recognize how close-minded one has to be to ignore the evidence surrounding the origin of life.

It’s much easier to go the Lewontin route. We simply “cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” But that sounds too much like science versus anti-religion.

Those of you who point out that there is the small matter of the origin of the universe, make the appropriate point that this assigning an infinitesimal prior probability to the existence of God is not really warranted given the facts. At that point the argument against God goes down in flames. The same is true for those of us who have experienced God’s action in our lives. But even without them the argument from the existence of life alone can only be countered by multiple universes where anything goes, denial of the improbability of life, appeal to unknown laws, or obfuscation. Mark has thankfully removed the fourth option.>>

Now of course, the inference to design of life (by some factor capable of such a design) on evidence of FSCO/I in life on earth is NOT an inference to God as designer. It pivots only on intelligence and design being reasonable possibilities. Where, whatever debates one may have about intelligence and its definition, we know that such is possible in the universe and that it is not confined to human beings, for many obvious and good reasons.

Where we may freely state on a base of trillions of cases in point, that every known instance of the origin of FSCO/I has come about by design, and that such design is a matter of easily observed fact.

Objectors to the inferred design of life on FSCO/I therefore

a: need to have convincing observed, empirical evidence to back up their implied claim that

b: blind chance (comparable to random molecular behaviour, Johnson thermal “noise” and tossing of dice etc) and/or

c: mechanical necessity (comparable to Newton’s famous F = m*a) are able

d: to account for NC machines such as the Ribosome in action . . .

prot_transln

e: i.e. molecular nanomachines using algorithmic, coded mRNA tapes and

f: tRNA position-arm with end effectors [with universal tool tips in the CCA coupler that is loaded by loading enzymes based on configuration of the tRNA, not by mechanical necessity of Chemistry], on

g: observed capability of blind chance and mechanical necessity to create FSCO/I.

That’s a tall order, and it simply has not been met nor on trends is it likely ever to be met.

Going beyond, PG is right to raise the challenge of cosmological fine tuning pointing to design of the observed cosmos by at root a skilled, powerful and highly intelligent designer; with a level of plausibility that easily must far exceed the sort of dismissively infinitesimal prior probabilities MF obviously has in mind.

Just to cite Sir Fred Hoyle, a lifelong agnostic (or even atheist) and Nobel equivalent prize holder, in a key talk at CalTech c. 1981:

The big problem in biology, as I see it, is  to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules.  The issue isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn’t give.  The case of the enzymes is  well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell.  When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all  the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes.  So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is,  as I see it,  the biological problem – the information problem . . . .

I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe.  So try  as I would, I couldn’t convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes – by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . .  By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . .

Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.

Where, he also noted:

From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]

Such a cosmos-building designer is of course uncomfortably close to the God of theism for many materialists.

Almost worse, it is an inherent part of the theistic concept of God that he is a very serious candidate necessary being. Such a being, will either be impossible [similar to how a square circle is impossible] or will be “there” in any possible world.

So, unsurprisingly, what we seem to be seeing is an attempt to get the advantages of God being impossible (expressed in terms of Bayesian priors) without having to actually show impossibility; by way of declaring “no evidence” and deeming the relevant priors infinitesimal.

The focus of that dismissal on claimed “no evidence” is the God of Judaeo-Christian theism, so it is appropriate for me to point out a 101 video summary of the “no evidence” evidence:

[vimeo 17960119]

. . . and to link a podcast on the current rhetorical gambit here, a wider summary of that evidence by way of a short video course, here; noting in passing that there is a live discussion here at UD on how Jerry Coyne has tried to join the chorus of New Atheists currently sophomorically announcing to the world that there is “no evidence” that Jesus is anything more than a myth. (Yes, this is attempted denial that there was a famous Carpenter and preacher from Nazareth in C1, bare existence, not debates on the further points made by Christians arguing that he is risen Lord and Saviour. [BTW, in former days, IIRC, there was a similar dismissal of the reality of Pontius Pilate, blown out of water by archaeological discoveries at the turn of the 1960’s. In short, this line of dismissive argument is a badly-worn retread.])

It seems that the sophomoric announcement that there is “no evidence” in order to dismiss inconvenient evidence, is now a stock in trade of selectively hyperskeptical New Atheists and their fellow travellers.

That, patently, goes to attitudes and motives, not just issues of warrant on facts and logic.

Let us set aside such obvious fallacies, and seriously engage the actual matters on their real merits. END

Comments
@DavidD Principle of sufficient reason. It so happens that Edward Feser has written his latest few blog posts on this. Principle of sufficient reason says that everything can be explained and/or that things can be used to explain other things by discovering the relations between them. This, to me, is what it means to explain things. To you?E.Seigner
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT
LOL, some things just never change. What a waste of energy. No wonder I see the world is so fouled up every time I turn on the News. No unity anywhere, just definition shell games at every turn of the corner, irrespective of the subject matter. "definition of what “to explain” means for either of you."DavidD
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
@Mark Frank It's true that it requires a fully elaborated argumentation to show how the concept of God explains anything, but similarly it requires a fully elaborated argumentation to show that it'd incoherent and fails to explain. Either give or ask for such argumentation. As a minimum, your discussion with StephenA would benefit greatly from a proper definition of what "to explain" means for either of you.E.Seigner
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
StephenA The difference is that God is not a coherent single concept that explains all of them. Rather for every phenomenon X God is given the additional attribute "can create X". Also (and here is it my personal experience) I think that we have non-divine explanations for many of things on your list - morality for example (and I am not going over all the morality argument again!).Mark Frank
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
MF:
I agree “describe” might be a better word than “explain” for Newton’s laws, although this debateable. For example, you can reasonably offer the laws of motion as an explanation of a specific event: Q: Why does the spacecraft behave this way when it ejects its stage module? A: It is Newton’s third law of motion.
Um, no. You haven't explained anything except maybe by tautology. The third law of motion describes what the motion of the spacecraft will be like (or was like), but doesn't explain it. Your question and answer could be rephrased as - Q: Why does it move like that? A: Because that is the way things move. But let's move on to the better example you offered. You claim electromagnetic radiation is a good example of multiple unrelated phenomena that can be explained by a single coherent concept. And it is a good example. Electromagnetism as a whole might be an even better example, since it explains electricity, magnetism and light (as well as the other forms of electromagnetic radiation). What about God then? What is His value as a explanation of multiple unrelated phenomena? God is proposed to explain: The origin of life on Earth The origin of the universe The laws of physics Why the universe is so comprehensible to us Morality Conciousness Humanity's peculiar and persistent desire to find something to worship The historical accounts of God's action in the world The sudden rise of Christianity in the face of extreme persecution And no doubt many other phenomena that I have overlooked Please be aware that I am not simply using God to explain anything that is otherwise hard to explain. I do not, for example, claim that God causes the placebo effect, even though I have no idea what might be the actual cause.StephenA
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
ES: In fact, Id strictly is the scientific study of empirical signs of design as cause. If you had learned the correct context of WmAD's remark on logos theology/phil (much the same at that level) you would have learned that he was going beyond science on wider issues. Here we have a major worldview that puts reason and informational communication at the heart of reality, and lo behold science backs that up on many levels. Had it gone the other way, objectors would be all over it like flies on roadkill to say see reality is a chaos not a cosmos so the view is overturned. Astonishingly, the risky 2000 year old claim is vindicated in surprising ways, and now the [il-]logic with a swivel tries to twist that into an accusation. The conclusion is obvious, ID and design-oriented rational views of the cosmos that hold it intelligible must go, "we" only need to find the appropriate dismissive argument. Heads "we" win, tails you IDiots lose. BZZZZT, fail. Time for fresh thinking and a fresh start. KFkairosfocus
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
As to confusing the implications of ID with the inference to ID, I wonder if Darwinism has any theological implications that go beyond its inferences? Atheist William B Provine from the movie Expelled - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy43bFoLk6M "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” ? Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life God, Darwin and My College Biology Class - Barash - Sept. 2014 Excerpt: EVERY year around this time, with the college year starting, I give my students The Talk. It isn’t, as you might expect, about sex, but about evolution and religion, and how they get along. More to the point, how they don’t. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/god-darwin-and-my-college-biology-class.html?_r=0 Oh well, so much for the argument that Darwinism is religiously neutral. In fact, not only do Darwinists fully acknowledge, and indeed 'preach', the religious implication of a Darwinian worldview, but Darwinism is founded upon, even reliant on, faulty theistic premises. In fact Darwinism would collapse without those faulty theistic premises,,, Faulty Theology provided the basis for Darwin's 'one long argument' in Origin of Species,, Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X and faulty theology continues to be used to this day,, Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740 In fact, in the twisted world of Darwinian reasoning, Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, which is actually a powerful scientific argument against Darwinism, as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to Darwinian theology, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations: It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012 Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]” – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome: A Case For Non-Intelligent Design” There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. – Dr. Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.” I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found: Mutation total (as of 2014-05-02) – 148,413 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/ Contrary to what Dr. Avise may believe, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of evidence in favor of Darwinism! In fact, it is a very powerful scientific argument against Darwinian claims,,, That this fact would even have to be pointed out to Darwinists is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian thinking truly is in regards to the science at hand. In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala uses the theological argument of ‘bad design’ to support Darwinian evolution and invites him to present evidence, any positive evidence at all, that Darwinian evolution can do what he claims it can: Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue: Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw Thus when Darwinists accuse ID proponents of going beyond the inference of design to the implications of Design, remind them that they themselves are far more reliant on Theistic premises than ID is.bornagain77
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
BA77 #41 You'd have thought Hawking would have had the intelligence to see the fatuity of the concept, wouldn't you? Amazing how they've got away with these grossly crazy misconceptions for so long, BA77. Disputing intelligent design in nature is another, when just the manifest design of everything in Nature speaks of not just intelligence, but an inconceivably awesome intelligence. Their brainlessness seems never ending. Imagine touting that mind is engendered by matter! Oddly enough, when one thinks of their minds, a degree of plausibility 'emerges'. Total incoherence seems to be fundamental to atheism.Axel
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Mr Frank and ES: Random Chance and Necessity (i.e. law) have never ‘caused’ anything to happen in the universe: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/has-jeffrey-shallits-fundamentalism-driven-him-barking-mad/#comment-517782 "to say that a stone falls to earth because it's obeying a law, makes it a man and even a citizen" - CS Lewisbornagain77
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
E Seigner:
You are pretty confident about what ID is or is not about,
Knowledge does that to me.
but it is an amazingly malleable thing.
Only to people without that knowledge.
For example, to his critics Dembski says ID theory makes no assumptions about the designer.
That is incorrect. ID is not about the designer. ID and IDists are free to make assumptions.
But when talking to an all-religious audience, he says that ID is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
But what does that mean? Why do you conflate what Dembski says with ID?Joe
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
StephenA
Or did you mean to use the word ‘describes’ instead of ‘explains’?
What's the difference? Isn't explanation a kind of description? Explanation is a description of causation and of not immediately apparent correspondences of phenomena rather than of the more immediately apparent process, entities, or sequences. Joe
No, ID doesn’t say any such thing as ID is NOT about the designing intelligence. ID is about the design.
You are pretty confident about what ID is or is not about, but it is an amazingly malleable thing. It entirely depends on who is talking and who is being talked to. For example, to his critics Dembski says ID theory makes no assumptions about the designer. But when talking to an all-religious audience, he says that ID is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.E.Seigner
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
#37 StephenA You are right that Newton's Laws are not the clearest example. A better one might be electromagnetic radiation. I agree "describe" might be a better word than "explain" for Newton's laws, although this debateable. For example, you can reasonably offer the laws of motion as an explanation of a specific event: Q: Why does the spacecraft behave this way when it ejects its stage module? A: It is Newton's third law of motion.Mark Frank
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
MF: No, I have no relation to StephenB. I picked my username simply because my first name is Stephen and my last begins with A. I'm not sure that you are using the word explained correctly in your last post. You use the laws of motion as an example of multiple unrelated phenomena that can be explained by a single coherent concept, but the fact is that the laws of motion explain no phenomena at all. The laws of motion are merely a (very precise) description of those phenomena that we call motion. Why we have motion at all remains unexplained. Did you perhaps pick a poor example? Or did you mean to use the word 'describes' instead of 'explains'?StephenA
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
E Seigner: As such, I logically reject ID theory which seems to say that intelligence can be detected or calculated or quantified. No, ID doesn't say any such thing as ID is NOT about the designing intelligence. ID is about the design. Thank you for continuing to prove tat you are ignorant wrt IDJoe
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
@Mark Frank What is the field in the field theory (as in theories of magnetism or quantum mechanics)? What is the mathematical space that enables mathematical calculations and geometry? What are universals? What is logic? Do they exist? Are they useful as explanations why things appear the way they do? For me personally this is precisely how I understand God. God is a logical presupposition that enables all other suppositions, the entire range of possibilities and experience. As such, I logically reject ID theory which seems to say that intelligence can be detected or calculated or quantified. The same way as we don't detect the field in the field theory, or the other universes in the multiverse theory - it doesn't even make sense to suppose we can detect those things; they only exist on the assumption that they serve an explanatory purpose - intelligence and God cannot be detected either. All this presupposes that metaphysical logical principles matter. They don't matter to most people. Lots of disagreement on how to construe things. Even more disagreement on how to construe explanations of things.E.Seigner
October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT
StephenA #32 (By the way are you in any way related to StephenB? You seem a lot less aggressive) It is a good point. If there are multiple unrelated phenomena that can be explained by a single coherent concept then that adds up to evidence e.g. laws of motion. But I don't see that. What I see is a concept that is given the attribute "can solve that problem" for each unexplained problem that copes up which doesn't seem like an explanation at all.Mark Frank
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
I should change the final sentence to "If, on the other hand, you don’t evaluate other claims of evidence for God’s existence this way, why make an exception for the claim that the design found in nature is evidence of God (or at least some sort of designer)?"StephenA
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
MF: Is this how you evaluate all claims of evidence for God's existence (or the smaller claim of ID that there is a designer of life on Earth)? You seems to say we (or at least you) should set our prior for the likelyhood of God as an explanation to effectively zero because there 'is no evidence'. But if you do this for all claims of evidence of God's existence, won't you have locked yourself out of admitting there is any evidence for Him even if hundreds of solid evidences did actually exist? If, on the other hand, you don't evaluate other claims of evidence for God's existence this way, why make an exception for the claim that the existence of life is evidence of God (or at least some sort of designer)?StephenA
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
MF
By effectively zero I mean that rationally it should be discounted as a possibility and that it is lower than any number you can give – although it is conceivable so I am reluctant to say categorically it is zero
Mark I certainly dont see any qualifier here however I will take it you mean what you said in your previous post, that you are saying this is only applicable to you. However what evidence could a theist have? And if there is no evidence a theist could point to then would that not make it irrational? Furthermore if there is other potential evidentiary sources that you do not accept then doesnt it boil down to philosophical differences? Thanks Vividvividbleau
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
F/N: On reasoning, warrant, support for conclusions and evidence. Rhetorically, persuasion pivots on pathos, ethos, logos. Of these, our emotions reflect cognitive judgements and perceptions so we look to the latter as how we feel in itself is no safe warrant. A witness, expert or presenter is no more credible than his/her underlying facts, reasoning and assumptions (all the way down to worldview level), in a world where both infinite regress and question-begging circularity are not credible. That leads to comparative difficulties across live option worldviews . . . serious candidates. Within that context, reasoning and facts are obviously vital. Facts are well established truths of our experienced world, which normally present through observation, experience, testimony, record. Such are amenable to the sort of analysis Greenleaf gave, with the emphasis that mass grand delusion in absence of signs of manipulation or implied undermining of the mind or selective hyperskepticism are patently fallacious appeals. (If challenged, reasons can be given, I don't want to make this into a mini novel.) Logic, of relevance, is deductive or inductive (including abduction, I speak in the modern sense). Deductive arguments face the weak link principle, they must be valid all the way through and must hang from true, well founded premises. This is hard, and we face Godel's incompleteness and irreducible complexity of the world of thought. We simply cannot span with complete coherent sets of axioms, nor can we ensure that realistically complex sets of axioms are coherent. Inductive ones support conclusions, in varied complicated ways and face the rope principle: relatively weak, short fibres, suitably twisted, counter-twisted or braided, and formed into a network can become extremely strong through cumulative effect. A key issue here, is how much would have to be denied to reject the whole. And so, we can see that evidence can include a wide array of facts, worldview level presuppositions reflected on through comparative difficulties, what credible witnesses, experts and presenters have to say, sound record, reasoned deductive and inductive arguments. In this context, with all due respect to MF et al, I can only find it to be beyond the pale of reasonable views for a reasonably informed and educated person who has engaged in serious public discussion to dismiss theism as having no evidence behind it. Remember, this is not a requirement of agreement with theism in one or more of its many forms, it is just saying, theists have some factual and logical grounds sufficient for such to sit at the table of comparative difficulties discussion per factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power and balance. (Cf discussion in the course unit note here, note the tipsheet.) With all due respect, something has gone seriously wrong here and in my considered view requires correction forthwith. KFkairosfocus
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
F/N: I draw attention to Section F of my note on hyperskepticism, which excerpts major rules of evidence-based reasoning advocated by a founding father of the modern Anglophone jurisprudential theory of evidence, Simon Greenleaf of Harvard: >> F] Some Rules for the Road: . . . perhaps the list of time-tested, common-sense based principles of wise reasoning worked out in Courts of Law over the centuries and collected by Simon Greenleaf in his assessment of the testimony of the evangelists -- cf. also his Evidence, Vols I, II and III [these, at Gutenberg] -- may prove useful: 1] THE ANCIENT DOCUMENTS RULE: Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. [p.16.] 2] Conversance: In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs. [p. 17.] 3] On Inquiries and Reports: If [a report] were "the result of inquiries, made under competent public authority, concerning matters in which the public are concerned" it would . . . be legally admissible . . . To entitle such results, however, to our full confidence, it is not necessary that they be obtained under a legal commission; it is sufficient if the inquiry is gravely undertaken and pursued, by a person of competent intelligence, sagacity and integrity. The request of a person in authority, or a desire to serve the public, are, to all moral intents, as sufficient a motive as a legal commission. [p. 25.] 4] Probability of Truthfulness: In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is a sufficient probability that it is true. [p. 28.] 5] Criteria of Proof: A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. [pp. 28 - 9.] 6] Credibility of Witnesses: In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector. [p. 29] 7] Credit due to testimony: The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances. [p.31.] 8] Ability of a Witness to speak truth: the ability of a witness to speak the truth depends on the opportunities which he has had for observing the facts, the accuracy of his powers of discerning, and the faithfulness of his memory in retaining the facts, once observed and known . . . It is always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound mind, and of the average and ordinary degree of intelligence . . . Whenever an objection is raised in opposition to ordinary presumptions of law, or to the ordiary experience of mankind, the burden of proof is devolved on the objector. [pp. 33 - 4.] 9] Internal coherence and external corroboration: Every event which actually transpires has its appropriate relation and place in the vast complication of circumstances, of which the affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, it is intimately connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident, related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be shown to be false. [p. 39.] 10] Marks of false vs true testimony: a false witness will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is a danger of his being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts, equally circumstantial . . . Therefore, it is, that variety and minuteness of detail are usually regarded as certain test[s] of sincerity, if the story, in the circumstances related, is of a nature capable of easy refutation, if it were false . . . . [False witnesses] are often copious and even profuse in their statements, as far as these may have been previously fabricated, and in relation to the principal matter; but beyond this, all will be reserved and meagre, from fear of detection . . . in the testimony of the true witness there is a visible and striking naturalness of manner, and an unaffected readiness and copiousness in the detail of circumstances, as well in one part of the narrative as another, and evidently without the least regard to the facility or difficulty of verification or detection . . . the increased number of witnesses to circumstances, and the increased number of circumstances themselves, all tend to increase the probability of detection if the witnesses are false . . . Thus the force of circumstantial evidence is found to depend on the number of particulars involved in the narrative; the difficulty of fabricating them all, if false, and the great facility of detection; the nature of the circumstances to be compared, and from which the dates and other facts to are be collected; the intricacy of the comparison; the number of intermediate steps in the process of deduction; and the circuity of the investigation. The more largely the narrative partake[s] of these characteristics, the further it will be found removed from all suspicion of contrivance or design, and the more profoundly the mind will rest in the conviction of its truth. [pp. 39 - 40.] 11] Procedure: let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances.[p. 42.] Here, we supplement: J W Montgomery observes of the NT accounts -- and following the McCloskey and Schoenberg framework for detecting perjury -- that the modern approach to assessing quality of such testimony focusses on identifying internal and external defects in the testimony and the witness: (a) Internal defects in the witness himself refer to any personal characteristics or past history tending to show that the "witness is inherently untrustworthy, unreliable, or undependable." (b) But perhaps the apostolic witnesses suffered from external defects, that is, "motives to falsify"? (c) Turning now to the testimony itself, we must ask if the New Testament writings are internally inconsistent or self-contradictory. (d) Finally, what about external defects in the testimony itself, i.e., inconsistencies between the New Testament accounts and what we know to be the case from archaeology or extra-biblical historical records? --> In each case, the answer is in favour of the quality of the NT, as can be observed here. 12] The degree of coherence expected of true witnesses: substantial truth, under circumstantial variety. There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them, and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually occurred. [p.34. All cites from The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics, 1995). The First Easter's timeline gives a good case in point. You may find it profitable to also examine Edwin Yamauchi's review and W L Craig's remarks on the resurrection vs the current version of the hallucination hypothesis. Craig's critical assessment of the Jesus Seminar is also well worth the time to read it.] >> The link will take the reader to onward links and a context that I believe will bear some perusal. KFkairosfocus
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
MF, With all due respect, the emphatic I see zero, makes little difference as you are a reasonably educated and informed person who has participated in public, online discussions of several fairly large relevant bodies of evidence. I think your epistemic duties rise to a level beyond those of a naive person who has not engaged such and is reacting to little more than dismissive rumours uncritically and unreflectively absorbed in a notoriously hyperskeptical era that confuses hyperskepticism with intelligence and sophistication. For such a person as yourself to claim no evidence is exactly to dismiss bodies of evidence, and to imply that those who have brought them up, are at minimum so confused and incompetent -- one form of irrationality -- as to be unable to discern what is evidence from what is not. Please, think afresh. KFkairosfocus
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
MF: I draw to your attention, this from 9 above on Bayesian thinking:
>> . . . the coming approach in probability seems to be bayesian. My own view is rather like that of Pascal: if you have to bet, which way, on what perceived odds, why. And, with what in the stakes, i.e. I see decisional issues lurking. I would also suggest that for OOL, we have an approach that speaks to what is reasonably feasible without committing to probabilities, sampling. Ironically, that is closely linked to WmAD’s own approach, though distinct. If we have 10^57 or 10^80 atoms and on conventional timelines 10^17 s, only so much can be done. So, when we see that the space of possibilities for 500 – 1,000 bits utterly swamps that, we have a good reason to infer that blind search will be fruitless given that FSCO/I is going to tightly lock down potentially successful configs. [--> cf OP above] I would also suggest that every soup can on a supermarket shelf is a test of the OOL approach. For fine tuning and privileged planet type stuff, my thought is, the cluster of laws, parameters, possibilities and circumstances look a lot like we are at a locally deeply isolated operating point for both. Sufficiently so that it is seriously arguable that we are looking at the signature of contrivance, even were we to find a super-law forcing cosmology (which simply pushes the tuning up one level). >>
I think this raises a cluster of concerns that are not simply, easily dismissible. Note for instance the views of the Nobel equivalent prize holder and lifelong agnostic, Sir Fred Hoyle, on fine tuning and linked matters:
Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” [[Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture[ --> Jan 12th 1982]), Enslow Publishers, 1982, pg. 28.] A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. [["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]
I think there is room aplenty here for holding that on what we do see without imposing evolutionary materialist a priori constraints, it is not reasonable to hold that there is "no evidence" for the reality of a powerful cosmos creator, which at minimum would raise the prior probability of God above infinitesimal. Other evidence, including eyewitness lifetime record of the life of Jesus, the spreading of the church rooted in the gospel he and his apostles taught, and the corpus of millions of historic and contemporary cases of living encounter with the life-transforming God in the face of Jesus, is not "no evidence" either. It is grossly implausible that we are all mistaken, delusional beyond all precedent or lying. And surely, per law of identity, evidence is evidence, here Wiki testifying against interest:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case. Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired . . . . Types of evidence Personal experience Scientific evidence Testimonial Physical evidence Trace evidence
I would add things such as reasonable record passing the ancient documents rule . . . fair on the face and coming from reasonable chain of custody, repository or provenance . . . the basis for ever so much historical knowledge. KFkairosfocus
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
VB
You stated that there is zero evidence for God and we must rationally discount the possibility of its existence. If that is so the opposite of rationality is irrationality. If we must rationally discount the possibility to not do so is irrational.
No I didn't. I said I see zero evidence for the Christian God (the discussion was about my prior beliefs). I absolutely recognise that different people have different ideas about what counts as evidence and also have different personal experiences that may weigh as evidence for them but not me. This is not irrational. Rationality comes in when going from evidence to conclusions. So it would be irrational of me to believe in a Christian God while also believing there is no evidence. It would be irrational not to believe in God if you believed there was strong evidence Also some lines of argument from evidence to conclusion might on examination prove to be irrational for either of us. That doesn't mean that either of us are fundamentally irrational people.Mark Frank
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
MF: As thread owner, I ask you to reflect on what Vivid has highlighted, and suggest it may also be helpful to note what I have said to him; it is a tad awkward to have you routinely ignoring relevant materials, of which there is a long track record. KF PS: My comment at 18 may also be relevant, as well as Dr Giem's at 12.kairosfocus
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
Vivid, your logic is spot on. MF is asserting evidentialism, and denying that there is ANY evidence reasonably viewed as supportive of the existence of God. This means that on his view the entire cluster of evidence, reasoning and experience millions have had for millennia constitute gross error, lying, utter failure of reason, even delusion. (For me, that includes the miracle of guidance that saved my life 40 years ago, my subsequent life experience with God and the people of God, and the miracles I have seen at close hand or have credible evidence of, before we get to more traditional arguments and issues. The notion that such a corpus of evidence can be swept away in a dismissive phrase is to my mind well beyond the pale of reasonable conduct. Something is seriously wrong here -- and, frankly, this begins to look and sound suspiciously like Rom 1:18 ff rhetorical territory. {Objectors, I will expand below and give links for much more, I am not merely mindlessly spouting off Bible verses; I think you should take time to ponder the warning/diagnosis there by one of the top minds of our civilisation, on any fair reckoning.}) MF seems further to be reasoning in a no evidence -- prior probability is infinitesimal circle of thought, the latter reinforcing the former. In effect, he refuses to allow a divine foot in the door, just as Lewontin talked about, so if P points to Q that would raise the credibility of God beyond the next to zero level, he will predictably reason NOT-Q so P must be wrong or wrongly understood by those imagining it to point to Q. Which means that on his view, theism and theists are utterly ill-informed, lack ability to think straight, are confused, and are profoundly at odds with the "real" world. That is, we are irrational or even delusional. Somehow, the patent gap between his pattern of thought and the facts of theistic thinkers and thoughts all around and on the ground for millennia, escape him. (I suspect he probably reinforces his views with a tad of well-poisoning by way of one sided litanies of the real or imagined sins of theists, failing to notice that the reality and repulsiveness of evil implies a world under moral government which points to a world-foundational IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. For this, there is just one serious candidate, the inherently good creator God, a maximally great, necessary being, the root of reality. Where, evil is best understood as the privation, perversion, frustration, or distortion etc of what is good out of proper purpose and its fulfillment.) I suggest that he would profit by seriously viewing the cluster of videos here, or at least the first 101 level one . . . and yes, Jesus of Nazareth may well be the most accessible and convincing case that opens the mind to the reality of God (and the Jesus mythers are plainly way off base). Next, he would find the discussion of evidentialism in the context of hyperskepticism here in context helpful (NB, on selective hyperskepticism -- the real problem, in my considered view -- cf. here on, note Locke's rebuke in his intro to the essay on human understanding here . . . ), if he is not utterly under control of the fallacy of the closed mind discussed here -- I could not find a good discussion online that matched what Dr Mertel Thompson, a Rhetor I knew on my Uni campus, taught me some thirty years ago. Third, in reconstructing his worldview, here on should prove helpful. MF needs to beware of shutting out and suppressing unwelcome truth that may point where he would rather not go. And writing off theists as a class as he has done by direct implication is a strong sign that something has gone deeply wrong. But then, for a serious candidate necessary being, such will either be impossible or actual. (Which, I discuss in the last linked above.) That is the atheist's dilemma in the aftermath of the collapse of the deductive form of the problem of evil, so-called, once Plantinga's free will defense had been seriously put on the table some 40 years ago now. (Cf here on in the same context as was just linked.) KFkairosfocus
October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
MF You ask You ask where did I get such and idea? I got it from you. You stated that there is zero evidence for God and we must rationally discount the possibility of its existence. If that is so the opposite of rationality is irrationality. If we must rationally discount the possibility to not do so is irrational. Vividvividbleau
October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
SB: Thanks, a short while back, the net was restored. Crews in Antigua got the tower on Bugby Peak back up it seems (they must be prioritising comms to go with hospital and airport). Monday morning, in rapid succession, here we lost mobile phones, power, broadband access and line phones as the storm side-swiped us. Antigua unfortunately seems mostly without power . . . the storm jogged a bit N and they took the brunt that we should have. It has strengthened to about 120 MPH steady (gusts typ up to +20%) as it hooked through the NE Caribbean E of Puerto Rico. It looks set to peak at 140 mph, in a day and a half, over the Atlantic. Thanks again. KFkairosfocus
October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
ANNOUNCEMENT; The weather is wreaking havoc at kairosfocus' location. As a result, his internet services are not in operation, so he will be incommunicado for a few days. He hopes to return as soon as possible.StephenB
October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
F/N: prior probability of God ---> 0, there is "no evidence" for God [implying theists who claim such evidence and especially experience are out of contact with credible reality], etc. KFkairosfocus
October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply