Question 3

[lismore]

We can always rely on you for some razor sharp insight. Why have you never been invited on Question Time?

Razor sharp enough to see you're flogging a dead horse in regards to debating this issue with Danny.

 

[ianb321red]

Why would an Atheist have an agenda? An Atheist has a lack of belief in a God. Atheism is not a positive statement, it is a null hypothesis.

So you don't think Richard Dawkins' hostility towards organised religion in any capacity suggests the he might have an agenda of some description?

For example I didn't belive the stories of giant squid just from old tales from sailors. I was therefore the Giant Squid equivalent of an Atheist.
I didn't believe Giant squids didn't exist either. I just wasn't going to believe they existed until I had evidence.
Once I saw news reports with videos of said Giant squids I believed they existed as I now had evidence. There was no bias on my front, just skepticism.I didn't watch the news report and say "Oh they must have faked it". That would be biased. This is quite rightly absurd, yet what you are accusing Atheists scientists of.

I'm suggesting that biascould happen, and I believe that this is a possibility anytime you have a concentration of knowledge that is passed down from academia/ intelligensia to the general public.

Back in 2000 I began a Phd* on applying the theory of "social representations" (see Social representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and one aspect of this theory is to understand how information/ knowledge is integrated from it's source and evolves in to a wider social construct.

When you have a basic understand of how and where certain sources of information/ knowledge begin from, then you can see why what I'm suggesting is, in theory, a possibility......

(*NOTE: in case anyone is wondering I didn't complete this because my Phd tutor left the university and there wasn't suitable replacement for me who had a interest in my topic of study)

Science works by proposing a hypothesis and then testing the predictions of this hypothesis. I can't think of a better way of establishing the validity of a hypothesis.

I agree, but this is just a very general point - is it relevant here??

 

[tonybeer]

So you don't think Richard Dawkins' hostility towards organised religion in any capacity suggests the he might have an agenda of some description?

I'm suggesting that biascould happen, and I believe that this is a possibility anytime you have a concentration of knowledge that is passed down from academia/ intelligensia to the general public.

Back in 2000 I began a Phd* on applying the theory of "social representations" (see Social representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and one aspect of this theory is to understand how information/ knowledge is integrated from it's source and evolves in to a wider social construct.

When you have a basic understand of how and where certain sources of information/ knowledge begin from, then you can see why what I'm suggesting is, in theory, a possibility......

(*NOTE: in case anyone is wondering I didn't complete this because my Phd tutor left the university and there wasn't suitable replacement for me who had a interest in my topic of study)

I agree, but this is just a very general point - is it relevant here??

There's a massive difference between hostility towards organised religion, and the lack of belief in a deity.

Richard Dawkins academic work is on gene centered evolution. I'm not sure how hostility towards organised religion could affect this work.

I'm not a massive fan of organised religions either. To me it just seems to be a way of getting money out of vulnerable people and giving those in charge power. This however has nothing to do with my belief or lack of belief in a God and would not affect any science experiment I was doing.

I have a lack of belief in Ghosts, UFO visitations, Pixies and Leprechauns as well. This lack of belief wouldn't affect me say studying neutrino oscillations.

I also have a lack of belief in "String Theory" as it is only a hypothesis at the moment with not enough data to support it. If it is shown to have overwhelming supporting data then I will believe it.

Same goes for the Higgs Boson. There is now enough data to support its existence. However when I did my degree there wasn't, so it was one of several hypotheses mooted. So at that stage I didn't believe it existed. If I had gone on to work at CERN my lack of belief would not have affected the discovery of the particle, it would have only added extra credibility to its discovery.


All science experiments start from the assumption that the null hypothesis is true.

You are right that bias can happen. However this will only come from someone who holds firm position before there is sufficient data. This would be a firm "this doesn't exist" or a firm "this does exist". Atheism is neither or these positions.


Say I was doing an experiment looking at some sort of ESP (say a person who says they can tell me what playing card I am looking at). I will design an experiment that tests this fairly. However I am skeptical.

Say the study is done to a 95% confidence level and there is shown to be an effect. Given this is such an unlikely result I would suggest the test was run again. Is this biased?

The answer of course is NO. There was a 5% chance of a false positive. If the test is rerun, and further tests are shown again showing a positive effect then it just adds more evidence that there is an effect.

My skepticism may mean that more tests are run, but if there is actually a real effect this in turn just gives more weight to the claim that it is real effect.

Would I try and suppress the truth, as you suggest? Of course not as I will get loads more funding and probably a better position at the university because of my research.

However if I had faked data to show an effect where there wasn't I would lose my job and all credibility.

If scientists just suppressed the truth all the time, and never changed thier minds then science would get nowhere.

 

[ianb321red]

Found this article which addresses this from a slightly different, but nevertheless still makes this same general point about bias:

Is There an Academic Bias against Religion? Appears so, at Least against Conservative Christians.

 

[tonybeer]

Found this article which addresses this from a slightly different, but nevertheless still makes this same general point about bias:

Is There an Academic Bias against Religion? Appears so, at Least against Conservative Christians.

The great thing about science is that if done properly, ten ultra hardcore Chrisitans will come to the same conclusions as ten Atheists.

If there is any bias though this will come from the Christian, not the Atheist. Remember, Atheism is just the lack of belief in the claim that there is a God and it makes no positive statement. I don't know any Atheistic Scientists that make the claim a God does definitely not exist.

If there was scientific evidence a God existed and scientists ignored it this would be biased. This has not happened yet.

A Christian scientist MUST leave his religious ideas at home when doing science. This is because there is no scientific evidence of a God. If there was almost all scientists would be deists, and this could and would then be incorporated into science.

This isn't limited to religion though, any believer in anything without evidence must leave these ideas at home.

I've met scientists who are Christians and they have never once mentioned God in any of the science they do. If they had any evidence they would have every right to.

 

[ianb321red]

The great thing about science is that if done properly, ten ultra hardcore Chrisitans will come to the same conclusions as ten Atheists.

"ultra hardcore christians"

If there is any bias though this will come from the Christian, not the Atheist.

I don't think is any basis or evidence for this claim to be honest. There is more evidence that in a secular society that the opposite would be true. I don't know of any campaigns from Christians that oppose atheism in any meaningful or constructive way..

Remember, Atheism is just the lack of belief in the claim that there is a God and it makes no positive statement. I don't know any Atheistic Scientists that make the claim a God does definitely not exist.

Right, so therefore this is not atheistic; it is actually an agnostic position ?
Atheism does not say that "I do not believe in God"; it affirms the negative position (non existence) of theos (God) - quite simply there is no God.
Your definition shows that you are NOT making an absolute claim that God definitely does NOT exist, therefore that is agnosticism.
And if it is agnosticism then because you are not making absolute claims about God's existence (because in fact you cannot), then you have to hold the agnostic position that we don't know. Richard Dawkins (claims to) hold this position, and at least if this is held genuinely then it means the possibility is still there (for some people) to "discover" God and furthermore confirm that atheism is fundamentally self-defeating as a thought system, and which is highly dangerous if this system of thought infiltrates research projects of any discipline which claim to be on the road of "discovery".....

If there was scientific evidence a God existed and scientists ignored it this would be biased. This has not happened yet.

How do you know this ? Have you read any of the previously mentioned books by scientists (not apologists or evangelists) who are Christians and believe that there is evidence for God?

A Christian scientist MUST leave his religious ideas at home when doing science. This is because there is no scientific evidence of a God. If there was almost all scientists would be deists, and this could and would then be incorporated into science.

Can you not see how self defeating your approach to science really is?
You're saying there is no scientific evidence for God, and that religious beliefs should be left at home, yet previously you have said that it is down to science to decide whether a deity exists or not. This is self defeating and proves my point about bias, because any scientific research you start in your opinion must start with the presupposition of no god BEFORE the evidence has been gathered and analysed. That's not a robust approach to research at any level.

This isn't limited to religion though, any believer in anything without evidence must leave these ideas at home.

We've had this conversation before. Again from a research perspective this is imposing your own personal (evidentialism) beliefs as much or arguably more than anyone with religious beliefs, and what you're suggesting that is wrong you are seemingly guilty of yourself.

 

[tonybeer]

Ian - I've glad you've written what you have as it shows where perhaps you have been going wrong.

Firstly - Atheism is not a positive statement. It is a lack of belief in the claim that there is a God. Without people such as yourself claiming there is a God, there would be no Atheists as there is no claim to reject. I'm very surprised you don't know this.

Yes there are Atheists who believe there are no Gods. This is actually impossible to do, so it can never be stated 100% to be factually correct.

I don't believe Bigfoot exists and Bigfoot does not exist are competely different statements.

Which leads us onto point 2, the null hypothesis.

You have to start off with the null hypothesis that something does not exist. This is Atheism. The null hypothesis is unprovable. However it is the default position.

Why do you have to start off with this position? Very easy, because it is the most likely to get the actual answer.

Lets say someone claims bigfoot exists. We have 2 options:

1. We either start off with the position that bigfoot does exist and we must prove it does not.

2. We disbelieve the claim that bigfoot exists until there is evidence to support it.

It is impossible to prove something does not exist, therefore point 1 is totally invalid and useless (unless you want to believe any claim anyone ever makes). We must therefore use 2. I am not being biased by taking this approach, despite what you claim.

Every science experiment starts off with null hypothesis that an effect does not exist, and you must use data collected to suggest otherwise.

This is the very foundation of science, yet you are suggesting it is done differently just so you can believe what you want to believe. Those of us that care about the truth won't take this approach.

 

[ianb321red]

Ian - I've glad you've written what you have as it shows where perhaps you have been going wrong.

Firstly - Atheism is not a positive statement. It is a lack of belief in the claim that there is a God. Without people such as yourself claiming there is a God, there would be no Atheists as there is no claim to reject. I'm very surprised you don't know this..

Ok, maybe my previous post wasn't clear because I'm entirely sure why you think I've indicated that atheism is a positive statement?

My understanding of the definition of atheism (atheos) is that is affirms the negative (alpha); 'a' about god (theos) therefore it equates to "negative god"; there is no god. This is a position that affirms a negative.

Actually I think I said this is my previous post that it affirms a negative, so why do you think I've said atheism is making a positive statement ??

Unless I've misunderstood something, then atheism acknowledges that a belief in god as a phenomena does indeed exist for some people (theism), but holds that this belief is rejected. Atheism acknowledges that this belief in God does exist objectively speaking, but rejects the components that form the basis of the belief for this claim.

Logically I can only see that holding an agnostic position works, since agnosticism doesn't make absolute claims unlike atheism which does. Atheism attempts to affirm that negative position (about the existence God) in an absolute sense which is impossible and therefore a logical contradiction.

Agnosticism makes more sense to me logically because it at least it is a position that has been (purportedly) reached analytically and doesn't make outright or absolute claims like atheism which as a system it cannot for one second support logically in any way, shape or form. When you actually understand the reality of what atheism can and cannot make claim to, then it is clear that any vaguely open minded person needs to hold an agnostic position to be taken seriously....

 

[tonybeer]

We can make 5 statements about the existence of something.

1 It does not exist

2 I haven't seen enough evidence to support the claim it exists, so I will disbelieve this until it does.

3 I don't know whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant the claim that it exists

4 There is sufficient evidence to believe the claim that it does exist.

5 It does exist

2 is Atheism, 3 Agnosticism and 4 Theism. 1 and 5 to me seem illogical. 1+2 and 4+5 get lumped into the same thing but they are different.

 

[Skavau]

Ok, maybe my previous post wasn't clear because I'm entirely sure why you think I've indicated that atheism is a positive statement?

My understanding of the definition of atheism (atheos) is that is affirms the negative (alpha); 'a' about god (theos) therefore it equates to "negative god"; there is no god. This is a position that affirms a negative.

Actually I think I said this is my previous post that it affirms a negative, so why do you think I've said atheism is making a positive statement ??

Unless I've misunderstood something, then atheism acknowledges that a belief in god as a phenomena does indeed exist for some people (theism), but holds that this belief is rejected. Atheism acknowledges that this belief in God does exist objectively speaking, but rejects the components that form the basis of the belief for this claim.

Logically I can only see that holding an agnostic position works, since agnosticism doesn't make absolute claims unlike atheism which does. Atheism attempts to affirm that negative position (about the existence God) in an absolute sense which is impossible and therefore a logical contradiction.

Agnosticism makes more sense to me logically because it at least it is a position that has been (purportedly) reached analytically and doesn't make outright or absolute claims like atheism which as a system it cannot for one second support logically in any way, shape or form. When you actually understand the reality of what atheism can and cannot make claim to, then it is clear that any vaguely open minded person needs to hold an agnostic position to be taken seriously....

Atheism does not preclude Agnosticism.

 

[ianb321red]

We can make 5 statements about the existence of something.

1 It does not exist

2 I haven't seen enough evidence to support the claim it exists, so I will disbelieve this until it does.

3 I don't know whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant the claim that it exists

4 There is sufficient evidence to believe the claim that it does exist.

5 It does exist

2 is Atheism, 3 Agnosticism and 4 Theism. 1 and 5 to me seem illogical. 1+2 and 4+5 get lumped into the same thing but they are different.

#5 - why is this illogical when referring to the existence of "something"? But I agree you cannot say this definitively about God and that #4 (reworded: see below) is more suitable for theism
#2 - I disagree that this is atheism
#2 & #3 - actually I think these are both agnosticism because in both you have used the terms "enough evidence" and "evidence is sufficient" which is effectively saying the same thing
#1 - this appears to me to be atheism because it is making an absolute claim which is what atheism does
#4 - I agree with this, although in reference to theism I would word it as "theism offers the best explanation of (xxxx) based on the available data we currently have"....or something similar

 

[ianb321red]

For future reference:

Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I may revise my earlier comments once I have read this link properly...

 

[tonybeer]

I'm not a big fan of Dawkins' spectrum as I think it is impossible to put a numerical probability of existence of something, though in some parts it is making the same points as me.

Trust me, #2 is Atheism as I understand it.*

The point was that in #3 you cannot assess whether the evidence is sufficient or not.

With #2 you assess the evidence is not sufficient.

Neither position has actually made any statement to whether the thing actually exists. It is an assessment of the claim and associated evidence.


For example if I say my real name is Brian, you'd probably be #3**, whereas if I said I have an invisible magic dragon next to me you'd probably be #2. Neither of these positions require you to make any kind of assertion as to whether either of these things are actually true (you are just assessing the evidence), but they are different!

You would take position #3 as you know people are called Brian, and you know people don't always use their real name in forums. However you also know I maybe lying as I'm trying to make a hypothetical point. You could however have taken position 2#.

You have never had any evidence of magic dragons though and extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence so you are going to be more inclined to think I am lying on point 2. You can't prove I'm lying, but you don't need to. You are just assessing the evidence you have, and my statement is not enough to meet the standards you require.

*There is a further term of strong and weak Atheism, whereas one asserts there is no God and one does not. I don't personally think one can be a strong Atheist and understand the logic I've already used and I've never heard anyone who understands it state this. I think #1 is strong Atheism.

** If I gave you my passport you'd probably be #4 as this to most people is good evidence. I might have a fake passport, but this is unlikely.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[theFijian]

Razor sharp enough to see you're flogging a dead horse in regards to debating this issue with Danny.

But not razor sharp enough to spot I wasn't even addressing Martin. Keep up the good work.

 

[ianb321red]

I'm not a big fan of Dawkins' spectrum as I think it is impossible to put a numerical probability of existence of something, though in some parts it is making the same points as me.

Trust me, #2 is Atheism as I understand it.*

The point was that in #3 you cannot assess whether the evidence is sufficient or not.

With #2 you assess the evidence is not sufficient.

Neither position has actually made any statement to whether the thing actually exists. It is an assessment of the claim and associated evidence.


For example if I say my real name is Brian, you'd probably be #3**, whereas if I said I have an invisible magic dragon next to me you'd probably be #2. Neither of these positions require you to make any kind of assertion as to whether either of these things are actually true (you are just assessing the evidence), but they are different!

You would take position #3 as you know people are called Brian, and you know people don't always use their real name in forums. However you also know I maybe lying as I'm trying to make a hypothetical point. You could however have taken position 2#.

You have never had any evidence of magic dragons though and extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence so you are going to be more inclined to think I am lying on point 2. You can't prove I'm lying, but you don't need to. You are just assessing the evidence you have, and my statement is not enough to meet the standards you require.

*There is a further term of strong and weak Atheism, whereas one asserts there is no God and one does not. I don't personally think one can be a strong Atheist and understand the logic I've already used and I've never heard anyone who understands it state this. I think #1 is strong Atheism.

** If I gave you my passport you'd probably be #4 as this to most people is good evidence. I might have a fake passport, but this is unlikely.

I hope that clears things up.

Is weak atheism just another name for agnosticism?

#1 is what I consider atheism and what you've referred to as strong atheism, and from what I can make out there are many people who hold the position of strong atheism; Sam Harris certainly does...

 

[Skavau]

Is weak atheism just another name for agnosticism?

#1 is what I consider atheism and what you've referred to as strong atheism, and from what I can make out there are many people who hold the position of strong atheism; Sam Harris certainly does...

"Weak atheism" is basically agnostic atheism (which most atheists would likely fall under).

You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Agnostic contrasts to Gnostic. Atheism contrasts to Theism. (A)gnosticism and (A)theism are entirely compatible.

 

[tonybeer]

No, the two positions are different. You do get Agnostic Atheism though.

There is no God, I don't believe God exists and I don't know whether God exists are all different positions, though they can overlap given how we use language to communicate these positions.

Regardless of whether God actually exists or not, these positions can only come about when someone makes the the claim a God exists.

The problem of #1 is that it is impossible to prove the non existence of something, you can only say it is highly highly unlikely, as you can never have every single piece of information.

This is the same as science where you cannot prove the null hypothesis, rather you find evidence of the alternative hypothesis.

 

[MorkandMindy]

In my experience Christians speak with forked tongue on philosophical questions.

When confronted they will drop the most ludicrous claims, which is all of them, and just sort of say that it is impossible to prove that their God doesn't exist.



Then when some unwary person comes to 'hear the good news' they pick up all the unfounded claims they had to drop and just throw them at the unwary: 'well there is no absolute proof that God exists BUT isn't it amazing how much evidence there is; so much in fact that it takes more faith to think that He doesn't exist, and you are left without excuse if you reject and choose to run away from the evidence... blah blah blah.'

'... for example there were thousands who heard his ministry and saw his miracles and five hundred who met him after his resurrection and both Pilate and Herod who met him are well known in history...'


- of course the only source for believing that there were five hundred who met him after his resurrection or thousands who saw his miracles or that Pilate or Herod met him, is the gospel in it's various versions.

There were about two dozen versions of the gospel but just four were approved at the Council of Nicea IIRC, and that is most we can claim to know or think we know about Jesus; basically one piece of writing.

 

[ianb321red]

There were about two dozen versions of the gospel but just four were approved at the Council of Nicea IIRC, and that is most we can claim to know or think we know about Jesus; basically one piece of writing.

No - this is wrong (I'm assuming you're referring to the AD 325 Council rather than the AD 787 one?)

The AD 325 council affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ and established an official definition of the Trinity—the deity of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit under one Godhead, in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

The Council of Nicea affirmed the Apostles' teaching of who Christ is—the One true God in Deity and Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The Council had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397:

The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture
Who Gave Us the Scriptures

The Nicea council influence on the canon is a factual misunderstanding which has been widespread and popularised by Dan Brown/ The Da Vinci Code.....

 

[MorkandMindy]

The canon was a consensus that developed bit by bit.

Certainly it wasn't finalised in 325 because Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and part of The Shepherd of Hermas, and it could be argued with recent convergence of opinion on the Deuterocanonical Books that it is still going on today.

I haven't read or heard much of anything from Dan Brown.


Codex Vaticanus is dated 325 to 350, and Codex Sinaiticus 330 to 360 so backed by the 'fifty Bibles of Constantine' statement by Eusebius and the accepted motivation of Constantine to get the disputing factions of Christianity to agree, it seems reasonable to suppose he had those 50 bibles made to give a common scripture for the church and to ensure the trinity was uniformly promoted.