Atheism's Burden of Proof

[DogmaHunter]

This is where you make an assumption, and where you could go back and challenge the assumption and learn new things.

That statement isn't an assumption. It's a fact that scientific propositions are well motivated as opposed to claims of supernatural stuff.

There is one true God,

And you know this, how?

and thousands of attempts to put a face onto God, failed.

Uhu.

Really to find what you haven't you'd have to proactively seek the Lord. I did. The way to seek i know is to read through the accounts of what He said in the 4 gospels.

I read the bible. Didn't find any gods there. It's just another religious book.

 

[KCfromNC]

Science isn't useless. It just doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the nature of reality. Those are two very different things.

If you're going to use that standard, nothing else does either. That tells me that it isn't a very useful metric.

 

[KCfromNC]

the very philosophy of science that makes science intelligible at all.

Philosophy of science came after science was already intelligible to the overwhelming majority of scientists and interested laypeople. I think you have the cause and effect backwards here.

Naturalism is unfalsifiable.

No, it isn't falsified. Want to change that? Show us the supernatural. Easy enough.

 

[Halbhh]

Anything beyond that, we currently have no reason to accept as true. I can't say it's impossible that the supernatural exists, however until it's demonstrated I have no reason to believe it does. By default, I'm left with what we can show to be true, which is naturalism.

If at some point we can reliably prove the supernatural exists, then it would disprove naturalism.

Question: You use the word "we" above. Does "we" exclude me?

To me, "we" includes both me and you, and others, without prejudice.

I have strong reason to know God exists. So am I part of "we" or not?

Suppose your neighbor told you that they have a levitating basketball in their house. (btw, trivial fact, this is possible to do in a few ways)

Now, would you say you don't believe them?

I think this is a very interesting question.

Suppose though instead of an inanimate object, inert, instead they said this to you:

"We have an neon purple bird that shows up sometimes, not often, and it's hard to say what it is, because it looks a little like an owl and somewhat like a falcon."

Would you specifically disbelieve them?

If so, why?

Unlike the basketball, you can't simply come over and see, because the bird is not always going to choose to make itself seen, obviously.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Question: You use the word "we" above. Does "we" exclude me?

To me, "we" includes both me and you, and others, without prejudice.

I have strong reason to know God exists. So am I part of "we" or not?

Suppose your neighbor told you that they have a levitating basketball in their house. (btw, trivial fact, this is possible to do in a few ways)

Now, would you say you don't believe them?

I think this is a very interesting question.

Suppose though instead of an inanimate object, inert, instead they said this to you:

"We have an neon purple bird that shows up sometimes, not often, and it's hard to say what it is, because it looks a little like an owl and somewhat like a falcon."

Would you specifically disbelieve them?

If so, why?

Unlike the basketball, you can't simply come over and see, because the bird is not always going to choose to make itself seen, obviously.

Yes, "we" includes everyone. As for your reasons for believing, I'd have to examine them to see if they stand up to scrutiny.

As for your hypothetical situations:

If my neighbour has a levitating basketball in their house, I'd ask to see it. If I'm not allowed to see it, then I would be skeptical of the claim. Granted, there may be some ways to make a basketball levitate as you pointed out, so it's possible he's telling the truth, however without evidence I'm not really justified in believing him. So, I'd have to withhold judgment until I get some evidence.

As for the neon purple bird, I am not a biologist, so I don't know if this is false, or if there is actually some rare type of purple bird flying around. I don't know of any purple birds, but it could be someone's exotic pet that escaped.

He could be lying, he could be honestly mistaken, or he could be telling the truth. Based on my lack of evidence, all I can justifiably do is withhold judgment until more evidence is presented. If that evidence never presents itself, then I'm stuck withholding judgment. That's all I can justifiably do given the circumstance.

Granted, most trivial claims are worth accepting on face value. If someone says they have $5 in their wallet, for practical reasons I'm better off taking their word for it. If they're making an extraordinary claim, then they have to back it with some evidence.

 

[Silmarien]

Falsifiability depends on the ability to disprove something. If naturalism posits the natural world is all there is, and we discover the supernatural realm is a real thing, then naturalism has been totally disproven. Therefore in theory it's certainly falsifiable although in practice it's unlikely to be disproven that way.

I would say that falsifiability depends upon being able to provide a test that would show that the theory is false, and I don't know how anyone could scientifically test the premises of naturalism.

I also don't know what a supernatural realm is. If we're talking about ghosts and fairies, I imagine that it's theoretically possible that you could scientifically demonstrate that they exist. But then they'd no longer be supernatural entities--they'd be part of the natural order.

If the supernatural is "that which rests outside of the natural order," then any part of what we now consider supernatural that is eventually opened up to scientific study becomes naturalized. So naturalism and supernaturalism are moving targets. Unfalsifiable.

Philosophy of science came after science was already intelligible to the overwhelming majority of scientists and interested laypeople. I think you have the cause and effect backwards here.

Yes, it was intelligible, and then the quantum revolution happened and much of the underlying assumptions of the mechanistic worldview were called into question. There have been other complications since then, and it's useful to be aware of them to keep from assuming that science offers more certainty than it really does.

The fact of the matter is that rejecting mathematical platonism has interesting ramifications for scientific realism with regards to physics. If the mathematical equations underlying theories of physics are merely conventional, to what degree are the physical theories themselves simply societal constructs as well? It's an interesting condundrum, and kind of special pleading to just assert that mathematics is clearly all made up and physics clearly all true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Philosophy of science came after science was already intelligible to the overwhelming majority of scientists and interested laypeople. I think you have the cause and effect backwards here.

No. She's basically right. Furthermore, since science is basically an application of refined analysis, math, and techne which arose out the older philosophical ideas, it's safe to say that science is the child of "philosophy proper." Moreover, the whole point of Philosophy of Science is to encourage scientists to do some epistemological and metaphysical (maybe even ethical) house-keeping which they are often reluctant to do.

 

[KCfromNC]

No. She's basically right. Furthermore, since science is basically an application of refined analysis, math, and techne which arose out the older philosophical ideas, it's safe to say that science is the child of "philosophy proper." Moreover, the whole point of Philosophy of Science is to encourage scientists to do some epistemological and metaphysical (maybe even ethical) house-keeping which they are often reluctant to do.

Yeah, I've read these sorts of assertions a lot from people with philosophy backgrounds. Not so much from people who actually do science, though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, I've read these sorts of assertions a lot from people with philosophy backgrounds. Not so much from people who actually do science, though.

....and there may be reasons "why" for this seeming trend among various scientists. Here's one of them:

 

[KCfromNC]

I would say that falsifiability depends upon being able to provide a test that would show that the theory is false, and I don't know how anyone could scientifically test the premises of naturalism.

Admitting that science would be the best way to test something is very telling.

[QUOTE[I also don't know what a supernatural realm is.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, no one seems to know what they're talking about when they say that naturalism is limited and missing something. Now you understand why some people think naturalism is a perfectly good working conclusion.

Yes, it was intelligible, and then the quantum revolution happened and much of the underlying assumptions of the mechanistic worldview were called into question. There have been other complications since then, and it's useful to be aware of them to keep from assuming that science offers more certainty than it really does.

If only there were other approaches which did a better job. But there aren't, so complaining that science is the least bad is kinda meaningless.

It's an interesting condundrum, and kind of special pleading to just assert that mathematics is clearly all made up and physics clearly all true.

Good thing no one is doing this.

 

[KCfromNC]

....and there may be reasons "why" for this seeming trend among various scientists.

One might be because they understand the field they are experts in better than a bunch of amateurs in philosophy departments?

Also, who is claiming that science is true? I'm claiming it works and is useful, and does what it sets out to do better than the alternatives. Not sure where Truth enters into it, whatever that might be.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One might be because they understand the field they are experts in better than a bunch of amateurs in philosophy departments?

Also, who is claiming that science is true? I'm claiming it works and is useful, and does what it sets out to do better than the alternatives. Not sure where Truth enters into it, whatever that might be.

Darwin claimed that his findings, and the general work of science, is "provisional truth," a kind of middle-ground idea that science really is stumbling upon some 'reality,' but that our understanding of that reality is partial and always open to improvement. I would agree with Darwin on this.

However, in contrast to you, I'm not a big fan of Pragmatism...even though I do tend to be a Representational Realist in my epistemology.

 

[KCfromNC]

Darwin claimed that his findings, and the general work of science, is "provisional truth," a kind of middle-ground idea that science really is stumbling upon some 'reality,' but that our understanding of that reality is partial and always open to improvement. I would agree with Darwin on this.

I'd invite him to address your posts to him if it weren't for the obvious problems involved. Maybe it would be better to address what actual people in the thread are talking about?

However, in contrast to you, I'm not a big fan of Pragmatism...even though I do tend to be a Representational Realist in my epistemology.

Too bad philosophy has failed in its quest to find a way to figure out which of these beliefs is correct.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd invite him to address your posts to him if it weren't for the obvious problems involved. Maybe it would be better to address what actual people in the thread are talking about?


Too bad philosophy has failed in its quest to find a way to figure out which of these beliefs is correct.

Ok, Mr. Smart Pants. You be the teacher! Who should we all be listening to in order to procure for our minds what is most workable and useful? Got any academic names we should all listen to, or is this all your own chutzpah?

 

[Silmarien]

Admitting that science would be the best way to test something is very telling.

We're talking about falsifiability, which serves as a boundary between science and non-science. If you want to consider something scientific, it needs to be testable.

Yeah, no one seems to know what they're talking about when they say that naturalism is limited and missing something. Now you understand why some people think naturalism is a perfectly good working conclusion.

I know what I mean when I say naturalism is missing something. I don't know what naturalists mean when they talk about supernaturalism, though. ESP? Talking frogs? Greek demigods?

If only there were other approaches which did a better job. But there aren't, so complaining that science is the least bad is kinda meaningless.

Science is fine when people can differentiate between scientific data and philosophical interpretation of that data. You're the one complaining about philosophy; nobody is complaining about science. Just pointing out its methodological limitations.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I would say that falsifiability depends upon being able to provide a test that would show that the theory is false, and I don't know how anyone could scientifically test the premises of naturalism.

Something is falsifiable if: "it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which could negate them and in the corollary, conceive of an observation or an argument which proves them."

An observation of the supernatural would disprove naturalism, and therefore it is falsifiable.

I also don't know what a supernatural realm is. If we're talking about ghosts and fairies, I imagine that it's theoretically possible that you could scientifically demonstrate that they exist. But then they'd no longer be supernatural entities--they'd be part of the natural order.

If the supernatural is "that which rests outside of the natural order," then any part of what we now consider supernatural that is eventually opened up to scientific study becomes naturalized. So naturalism and supernaturalism are moving targets. Unfalsifiable.

It's not up to me to determine an exact definition for what the supernatural is. Plenty of other people have posited the idea that the supernatural exists, and if any one of them is correct, then naturalism is disproven.

The reality of the situation is that if something is true, it's impossible to legitimately disprove. That's where falsifiability in theory comes in. For example, gravity is falsifiable in that if we tested to see if matter was attracted to each other, and it wasn't, then the theory of gravity is disproven.

That's never going to happen, because gravity is a real thing. However, it is falsifiable in theory.

It's no different than if we discover something outside the natural realm, then naturalism is disproven, and therefore is falsifiable in theory. I'd argue that's almost as unlikely to happen as discovering gravity isn't real, however that is the criteria that is needed to disprove the idea, and it's not a moving target.

If ghosts are a natural phenomenon, then you would be correct that they would fit under naturalism. We don't currently have reason to believe they exist, however if they do and are naturally occurring, then they are a part of the natural world.

There are those people who believe something outside the natural world exists. Maybe they're correct, however it's up to them to prove it.

 

[Silmarien]

Something is falsifiable if: "it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which could negate them and in the corollary, conceive of an observation or an argument which proves them."

An observation of the supernatural would disprove naturalism, and therefore it is falsifiable.

You haven't shown that it's even possible to observe the supernatural scientifically. You're just stating that it is over and over again without explaining how you might do so. If personal experience counts as observation, then naturalism has already been disproven. Any aspect of alleged supernatural phenomena that can be studied through the scientific method is not itself supernatural. We can study physical aspects of NDEs, for example, but how can we observe whether or not they're objectively real?

Even if we were to witness a bona fide miracle, it would not disprove naturalism, because the naturalists could say that some day, we might have the means to explain what occurred scientifically, even if we currently do not. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and vice versa. This is the error of ID and their attempts to prove design.

It's no different than if we discover something outside the natural realm, then naturalism is disproven, and therefore is falsifiable in theory. I'd argue that's almost as unlikely to happen as discovering gravity isn't real, however that is the criteria that is needed to disprove the idea, and it's not a moving target.

Naturalism is a metaphysical concept, just like materialism. Materialism has been demonstrated to be a moving target--it was disproven by electromagnetism, but shifted its definition slightly to accomodate it. Naturalism can and, if necessary, will do the same.

These are not scientific theories. They're metaphysical constructs, and they can be stretched as necessary to account for new information. Anything that is too vague to even be defined properly is not falsifiable.

There are those people who believe something outside the natural world exists. Maybe they're correct, however it's up to them to prove it.

This is metaphysics, not physics, so it's not really up to anyone to prove anything. Just to defend your own position and point out the weaknesses in your oponent's.

"Only the natural world exists" is not a more neutral claim than "The natural world is not all that exists." I would say that the former is actually the more radical of the two ideas.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You haven't shown that it's even possible to observe the supernatural scientifically. You're just stating that it is over and over again without explaining how you might do so.

You don't have to, and in fact it would be absurd if that was a requirement. If the supernatural doesn't exist, then it's impossible to observe it. You can't devise a test to observe the impossible or non-existent.

Going back to the gravity scenario, can you devise a test to show gravity isn't real? I can't. You can test gravity, and I can tell you what observations would disprove the idea of gravity (namely we'd have to observe that matter isn't attracted to other matter). If naturalism is not correct, then we'd have to observe something that is outside the natural world to disprove it.

If personal experience counts as observation, then naturalism has already been disproven. Any aspect of alleged supernatural phenomena that can be studied through the scientific method is not itself supernatural. We can study physical aspects of NDEs, for example, but how can we observe whether or not they're objectively real?

Even if we were to witness a bona fide miracle, it would not disprove naturalism, because the naturalists could say that some day, we might have the means to explain what occurred scientifically, even if we currently do not. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and vice versa. This is the error of ID and their attempts to prove design.

Naturalism (or anything else) isn't categorically disproven by someone's anecdotal observation. You must confirm the observation.

And I agree, it's probably true that science can't fully study the supernatural if the supernatural is real. We'd have to devise some other method to test for the supernatural. However, people who believe in the supernatural still would have no justification to do so until we figure out that test. We'd be left with an unexplained phenomenon, and that's it.

Naturalism is more of a response to supernaturalism than anything though. Without people believing the supernatural, naturalism is simply the default. There wouldn't be any reason to even have the concept of naturalism as a worldview, even though everyone would effectively be naturalists.

As it stands right now, we have no reason to believe any other worldview other than naturalism. If we find reason to disprove naturalism someday, then that means we are currently wrong. That doesn't change the evidence and justifications we currently have, and it doesn't mean that we will one day disprove naturalism. Based on current evidence, naturalism is the only rationally justifiable position to have.

Naturalism is a metaphysical concept, just like materialism. Materialism has been demonstrated to be a moving target--it was disproven by electromagnetism, but shifted its definition slightly to accomodate it. Naturalism can and, if necessary, will do the same.

These are not scientific theories. They're metaphysical constructs, and they can be stretched as necessary to account for new information. Anything that is too vague to even be defined properly is not falsifiable.

The flaw in your argument is that nobody is arguing that we know everything there is to know about the natural world. If we discover something new about the natural world that we didn't know before, that doesn't disprove naturalism, it would be incorporated into it.

If ghosts turn out to be real, however are shown to be completely naturally occurring, that would be surprising however it's not inconsistent with naturalism. It would be an aspect of the natural world that we were previously unaware of.

If anything, discovering naturally occurring ghosts would be a strike against supernaturalism, if one of the main things cited to be supernatural was actually discovered, and wound up not being supernatural, that goes against the idea of the supernatural being real, not the natural. It only means we previously put that idea in the wrong category.

If we discovered supernaturally occurring ghosts however, then you have a clear proof that naturalism is false.

This is metaphysics, not physics, so it's not really up to anyone to prove anything. Just to defend your own position and point out the weaknesses in your oponent's.

"Only the natural world exists" is not a more neutral claim than "The natural world is not all that exists." I would say that the former is actually the more radical of the two ideas.

Occam's razor disagrees with you. We have no reason whatsoever to believe in the supernatural, and we have no reason to believe its existence is required for anything. We know the natural exists, and we know the natural works. You are needlessly and unjustifiably bringing a whole extra realm of existence into the equation for no reason whatsoever.

And hey, perhaps it's actually real, however as it stands we have no reason to take the idea seriously. Come back with better reasons, and then it's worth further consideration.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There needs to be a coherent, positive definition of the 'supernatural' before anyone can even consider what evidence for it would look like. I have never heard one.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There needs to be a coherent, positive definition of the 'supernatural' before anyone can even consider what evidence for it would look like. I have never heard one.

Bingo