Defining the term "evidence" in religion/science

[Michael]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7753868-70/#post64188950

Originally Posted by Heissonear

The other part: is their a Holy Spirit?​

No.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, which you don't.

You know I love you Mr Strawberry, and I'm not picking on you individually, or directing my question to you personally, but this particular exchange seems to be quite common around here. It begs the question: What exactly counts as "evidence"?

In science it's not uncommon for 'evidence" to be based upon a perceived *effect* that something has on another thing. For instance, we notice the *effect* that gravity has on objects. We notice the effect that EM fields have on charged particles.

The concept of evidence gets blurry quickly however as we move toward 'theoretical' physics because the cause/effect relationship *cannot be demonstrated* in controlled experimentation. For instance, there is no cause/effect demonstration between redshift and 'expansion of space' in the lab, no cause/effect demonstration between inflation and expansion of space, not cause/effect demonstration between dark energy and expansion of space, no demonstration between exotic matter and any effect on photons. All the cause/effect relationships are simply *assumed* without respect to laboratory confirmation.

What then can be considered *evidence* for something like a "Holy Spirit" that according to many humans has a tangible effect on humans?

 

[just another skeptic]

Hi, if you allow me to answer:What you call evidence in science about the "effect" of something on other things (gravitational pull, EM fields on charged particles) would rather be a fact or an observation.
It would be evidence, if you have a theory which explains a mechanism and predicts effects and you have those predictions confirmed by the facts. Then you have evidence.


With all those concepts you mentioned for example the dark matter:
You see that rotational curves of galaxies are different than simple gravitation theories would predict (observable effect). Two hypothesies follow:
Newtonian Mechanics need a major revision or there is mass we can´t see (not even in the whole of the EM spectrum) therefore it couldn´t be normal baryonic mass.
In a completely different part of physics measured by the expansion of space-time and the background radiation you need a flat space-time for which the normal baryonic mass wouldn´t be enough. Dark matter is needed. So the fact of the rotation curves of galaxies become evidence for the existence of dark matter.


For having evidence for something like a "holy spirit" you first need an exact definition of what this is: a theory. With this you can predict effects and look for them. If you find them you have evidence.

 

[Michael]

Hi, if you allow me to answer:What you call evidence in science about the "effect" of something on other things (gravitational pull, EM fields on charged particles) would rather be a fact or an observation.
It would be evidence, if you have a theory which explains a mechanism and predicts effects and you have those predictions confirmed by the facts. Then you have evidence.


With all those concepts you mentioned for example the dark matter:
You see that rotational curves of galaxies are different than simple gravitation theories would predict (observable effect). Two hypothesies follow:
Newtonian Mechanics need a major revision or there is mass we can´t see (not even in the whole of the EM spectrum) therefore it couldn´t be normal baryonic mass.
In a completely different part of physics measured by the expansion of space-time and the background radiation you need a flat space-time for which the normal baryonic mass wouldn´t be enough. Dark matter is needed. So the fact of the rotation curves of galaxies become evidence for the existence of dark matter.


For having evidence for something like a "holy spirit" you first need an exact definition of what this is: a theory. With this you can predict effects and look for them. If you find them you have evidence.

In the case of *controlled experimentation*, I'd agree with you that we can call some some lab tested events 'observations', but in theoretical areas of physics, even that's not always a given.

Without belaboring the point too much, even what astronomers call an "observation of acceleration" amounts to a very subjective, and completely unfalsifiable interpretation of data.

That's certainly true in term of "dark matter' as well, particularly since we just found more in the form of plasma than in the whole of human history prior to 2012, and it's located right where this 'dark matter" might be located.

http://www.livescience.com/23503-milky-way-galaxy-giant-gas-halo.html

I'm a little fuzzy on the "exact" definition of something like "dark matter" for instance. I've heard it described as everything from MACHO's to WIMPS.

Exactly how 'well defined' are hypothetical forms of physics?

 

[Elendur]

You have a set of all possible worlds.

Take an observation.

If the observation supports a set of worlds (i.e. is an expected outcome) it's evidence of that set of worlds.
The observation is also evidence against the compliment of the same set.

Theories and hypotheses are propositions of possible worlds (i.e. sets of worlds).
The observation is evidence of a theory/hypothesis the same way as any other set of worlds.

I think that covers it.
Take it at each meal of claims and sprinkle with questions.


By the way Michael, I should be able to answer within the week at the other thread (been having enough time to actually talk about morals, very fun)

 

[Michael]

You have a set of all possible worlds.

Take an observation.

If the observation supports a set of worlds (i.e. is an expected outcome) it's evidence of that set of worlds.
The observation is also evidence against the compliment of the same set.

Theories and hypotheses are propositions of possible worlds (i.e. sets of worlds).
The observation is evidence of a theory/hypothesis the same way as any other set of worlds.

I think that covers it.
Take it at each meal of claims and sprinkle with questions.


By the way Michael, I should be able to answer within the week at the other thread (been having enough time to actually talk about morals, very fun)

Hmmm. I'm having a hard time either a) fully grasping the idea you're proposing, and/or b) figuring out how to apply that to the topic of the existence of a 'Holy Spirit'.

A world with a Holy Spirit would be one where humans experience some effect by something they equate with a 'spiritual' power. A world without one wouldn't predict such an 'effect' on humans. By your definition you "seem" to be suggesting there is 'evidence' of a Holy Spirit?

You might as well ignore the other conversation and have some fun in this thread since pagan hades will likely freeze over before the conversation in the other thread will get resolved.

 

[Elendur]

Hmmm. I'm having a hard time either a) fully grasping the idea you're proposing, and/or b) figuring out how to apply that to the topic of the existence of a 'Holy Spirit'.

Well the existence of a 'Holy Spirit' is a hypothesis (at least).
That hypothesis will (hopefully) expect certain outcomes.

I'll try to illustrate it. This is a simplification, where we only have two objects, who both can take the binary values of true or not (ideally I wouldn't protested against a continual interval, but as a simple example this would suffice):

The total of possible worlds are four (as seen in the picture).
The total number of possible hypotheses/theories are 2^4=16 (the number of possible combinations where a world is either allowed or not).

Lets take the possible hypotheses (the expected outcomes in this case is explicitly stated in the hypotheses):
Hypothesis 1: (not X) and (Y).
(Including world 2)
Hypothesis 2: (X).
(Including world 1 and 3)
Hypothesis 3: (X) or (Y).
(Including world 1,2 and 3)

If we were to take an observation:
(X)

That observation would be evidence of hypotheses 2 and 3, while it would be evidence against hypothesis 1.

In reality we probably would assign probability to these and strengthen the probability for hypotheses 2 and 3 while lowering the probability for hypothesis 1. (Though here I won't go into the whole "how much more likely", that's a whole science in itself)

Imagine the same thing but with a whole lot more propositions and with more possible outcomes than true or false for them.

In this case a useless hypothesis would be "(X) or (not X)" since it would include every possible world.

A world with a Holy Spirit would be one where humans experience some effect by something they equate with a 'spiritual' power. A world without one wouldn't predict such an 'effect' on humans. By your definition you "seem" to be suggesting there is 'evidence' of a Holy Spirit?

No evidence I know of, that'd be entirely up to the hypothesis/theory.
But it allows for the possibility (which is kind of important with definitions, they'd want as little bias as possible).

You might as well ignore the other conversation and have some fun in this thread since pagan hades will likely freeze over before the conversation in the other thread will get resolved.

Yay hopefully this will make a difference in the other thread as well, since we've touched upon the nature of evidence and the like there before.

 

[Michael]

Well the existence of a 'Holy Spirit' is a hypothesis (at least).

I suspect we are ultimately comparing "evidence" of religious hypotheses to scientific ones. Non-hypothetical entities of physics I'd simply classify as empirical physics, and the evidence that supports them I'd simply classify as physics.

That hypothesis will (hopefully) expect certain outcomes.

In this case a null hypothesis (of Holy Spirit) predicts nothing in particular about human experiences, whereas a hypothesis involving Holy Spirit (some unspecified 'presence' of something), predicts experience of the Holy Spirit within humans.

I'll try to illustrate it. This is a simplification, where we only have two objects, who both can take the binary values of true or not (ideally I wouldn't protested against a continual interval, but as a simple example this would suffice):

I'd say your method of graphing multiple 'worlds' get's rather messy if we start trying to use such a grid system to start testing for the presence of *multiple* 'supernatural' (for lack of a better term) constructs. Based on the Planck data I can see how the graph point that contains inflation, dark energy, dark matter, space expansion, *and* curvatons, wins out over the graph point that predicts inflation, dark energy, space expansion, and *not* curvatons. On the other hand, by adding for the possibility of simply adding in yet another supernatural construct on a whim, you've pretty much eliminated any possibility of ever falsifying either 'inflation', 'dark energy', or the expanding space claim.

It seems like sooner or later you have to stop allowing for *multiple* supernatural constructs to all be involved in the *same* data, or there's no falsification method possible.

Your graph could simply lead to a religion with multiple gods rivaling the pantheon of Greek mythology, or a theoretical monstrosity with multiple ad hoc entities, all of which defy empirical falsification.

This is particularly true of any explanation offered for an uncontrolled event, and specifically an *uncontrollable* event.

Yay hopefully this will make a difference in the other thread as well, since we've touched upon the nature of evidence and the like there before.

First we'll have to see if you're willing to concede that a world with a Holy Spirit is more consistent with what we observe than one without it in terms of the recorded testimonies of humans since the dawn of recorded human civilization?

 

[EnemyOfReason]

For beginners to have evidence of something you must have something observable.

This seems to be a fallacy for many theists. Many will claim miracles as evidence but this only provides evidence for the supernatural and not in a specific deity.

If a theists claims evidence through prophesy then nobody can be sure as it is just divine hearsay and all prophecies that have been given are bias to one's environment and regardless of if they occur still provides nothing to a specific claim.


This is sort of a fallacy for many theists as by using the Deistic approach you are denying your own religion's functionality and credibility. The only evidence for a god within scientific perspective is within Deistic and Skeptical functionality.
Science by nature is going to be naturalistic in it's approach to obtaining wisdom as the ukhil was created to do such.
Emotional convictions serve no purpose or rational basis for a specific standpoint.


I know this was not dedicated to theology entirely but I am just assuming this is what you meant. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Also there is a major difference between a theory and hypothesis.


All theories are based upon principles in which we can see the end result of that said theory. Science is a theoretic in its claims not hypothetical. Any hypothesis holds no absolute validity in science when dealing with set facts.


Religions give claims with no said factual basis for it nor are they based upon observable principles often. Any observable principles is already known at a secular level. So al that is left is theological claims and all theological claims are hypothetical and almost always bias in accordance to the claims set from the source(Bible, Gita or Tawrat) before they can be substantiated for.

So religion can only make claims on a hypothetical level and all of such hypothetical claims have been superseded by theoretical ones the majority of the time.


Theory ALWAYS beats hypothesis when placed upon paper or textual analysis. Until the hypothesis can be substantiated for by a common principles or newly acquired fact it is a hypothesis and never theory.

 

[Strathos]

The Holy Spirit is something I have felt personally, but of course to someone who does not believe in it they would just say I am imagining it or something, it is not exactly something you can demonstrate to others asking for empirical evidence. It's not a scientific matter, it's spiritual.

 

[Heissonear]

Also there is a major difference between a theory and hypothesis.

All theories are based upon principles in which we can see the end result of that said theory. Science is a theoretic in its claims not hypothetical. Any hypothesis holds no absolute validity in science when dealing with set acts.

Religions give claims with no said factual basis for it nor are they based upon observable principles often. Any observable principles is already known at a secular level. So al that is left is theological claims and all theological claims are hypothetical and almost always bias in accordance to the claims set from the source(Bible, Gita or Tawrat) before they can be substantiated for.

So religion can only make claims on a hypothetical level and all of such hypothetical claims have been superseded by theoretical ones the majority of the time.

Theory ALWAYS beats hypothesis when placed upon paper or textual analysis. Until the hypothesis can be substantiated for by a common principles or newly acquired fact it is a hypothesis and never theory.

When people are baptized by the Holy Spirit, He "reveals" what our natural capacities cannot apprehend (mentally and physically).

Others then who have not experienced firsthand these "revelations" too often deduce that they must be imaginary, possibly psychotic, etc. in bases. Why? Because they cannot put to the test these "revelation experiences", these work of the Holy Spirit experiences are not subject to science. Natural man and science are the limiting factors.

It is that simple.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

The Holy Spirit is something I have felt personally, but of course to someone who does not believe in it they would just say I am imagining it or something, it is not exactly something you can demonstrate to others asking for empirical evidence. It's not a scientific matter, it's spiritual.

I am not a militant atheist nor a hateful shrew so I will break it down for you .

Much of what I say can be found in Thomas Paine's textual criticism of Christianity. I recommend you read it

Thomas Paine befittingly called the Holy Spirit and prophecy as nothing but "Divine Hearsay".

"As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I
proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the
word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means
something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such
a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case,
that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not
revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When
he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth,
and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is
revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and
consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a
revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in
writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first
communication- after this, it is only an account of something which
that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may
find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to
believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me,
and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."​

 

[EnemyOfReason]

When people are baptized by the Holy Spirit, He "reveals" what our natural capacities cannot apprehend (mentally and physically).

Others then who have not experienced firsthand these "revelations" too often deduce that they must be imaginary, possibly psychotic, etc. in bases. Why? Because they cannot put to the test these "revelation experiences", these work of the Holy Spirit experiences are not subject to science. Natural man and science are the limiting factors.

It is that simple.

This fallacy in arguing the existence of god is called Russell's teapot.

Just because nobody can prove the existence of your claim should not compel you to believe in what you claim. As I am not obliged to believe in you as I am unaware of your sincerity or the nature of your behavior(thus existence).

Any claim any Christian makes can be refuted with a gentle application of Solipsism.

 

[Strathos]

I am not a militant atheist nor a hateful shrew so I will break it down for you .

Much of what I say can be found in Thomas Paine's textual criticism of Christianity. I recommend you read it

Thomas Paine befittingly called the Holy Spirit and prophecy as nothing but "Divine Hearsay".

"As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I
proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the
word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means
something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such
a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case,
that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not
revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When
he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth,
and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is
revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and
consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a
revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in
writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first
communication- after this, it is only an account of something which
that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may
find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to
believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me,
and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."​

I can certainly understand that perspective.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

I can certainly understand that perspective.

Deism is essentially the god of naturalists and skeptics.

Many Christians are actually Deists at heart which lead to the spawning of Christian Deism

 

[Strathos]

A deist god wouldn't be expected to give revelations though

 

[EnemyOfReason]

A deist god wouldn't be expected to give revelations though

This is the main issue of course and the reason you never hear of Christian Deism .

Sort of an oxymoron and I am joyed that you spotted that out so quickly.

 

[Michael]

For beginners to have evidence of something you must have something observable.

Sometimes however what is actually "observed", and how it's *interpreted* can be quite subjective. There's a difference here between what can (and what might) be observed in direct experimentation on Earth and something that is purely 'hypothetical' at the level of physics. That's also true of any 'supernatural' concept in "religion". In fact I see no fundamental difference between hypothetical entities of 'science' and supernatural concept of "God'. One cannot empirically discount the "possibility", but sometimes the "evidence' becomes rather subjective.

For instance, while I'd grant you that there is evidence of 'missing mass'/dark matter, there is no "empirical evidence" for hypothetical forms of matter at the moment. LHC in fact *destroyed* most of the popular mathematical models related to SUSY theory.

Likewise it's hard to really see any 'unique' prediction related to string theory that one might 'put to the test'. The freedom afforded in so many theoretical extra dimensions provides for virtually *any* concept.

This seems to be a fallacy for many theists. Many will claim miracles as evidence but this only provides evidence for the supernatural and not in a specific deity.

I'm not sure I'd even claim it provides evidence for anything "supernatural' quite frankly. A "deity" need not be 'supernatural' in form or function.

If a theists claims evidence through prophesy then nobody can be sure as it is just divine hearsay and all prophecies that have been given are bias to one's environment and regardless of if they occur still provides nothing to a specific claim.

I saw the later quote from Thomas Paine. I don't happen to think that the interaction between creator and it's creation is unique to specific individuals. I'd assume in fact that if "revelations" occur in some humans, it likely occur in many if not all humans. It could happen in a vast majority of humans for all I know.

Like most topics however there are humans like Jesus that make some effort to become an 'expert' on some topic. Not everyone puts a lot of effort into the process of self exploration, or 'finding God'. For many if not most, it's a lip service process on one day of the week, and that's about it. Islam seems to be the exception in terms of "daily" organized worship in fact.

This is sort of a fallacy for many theists as by using the Deistic approach you are denying your own religion's functionality and credibility. The only evidence for a god within scientific perspective is within Deistic and Skeptical functionality.

I'd completely disagree with that statement by the way. There's more than ample evidence of a "personal God" IMO.

Science by nature is going to be naturalistic in it's approach to obtaining wisdom as the ukhil was created to do such.

Sure, but then again their 'could be' a very naturalistic explanation for an 'intelligent creator' (of humans on Earth). The scientific method seeks to understand reality. It if happens to include an intelligent creator, I'm sure science will eventually reveal evidence of that creator. I personally see no conflict between science and religion, but the concept of 'evidence' becomes rather blurry at the edges of both science and 'supernatural" religions. I'm trying to understand what constitutes 'evidence' of something that 'seems' (to our understanding) to be "supernatural' (say string theory), and something we are likely to experience "naturally" in our daily lives (like sunshine).

Emotional convictions serve no purpose or rational basis for a specific standpoint.

Sorry, but I don't buy the concept that emotions have no value anymore than I believe that sight, sound, smell, etc have no value as it relates to 'awareness'. All that circuitry provides valuable "sensory input' to awareness that may in fact be helpful in terms of "survival".

I know this was not dedicated to theology entirely but I am just assuming this is what you meant. Correct me if I am wrong.

I'm not quite seeing any concrete way to apply your notion of "evidence" to something like string theory, or SUSY theory, or anything that might seem to be "supernatural/hypothetical" in the realm of religion.

Could you elaborate a bit?

 

[Michael]

Also there is a major difference between a theory and hypothesis.

In theory yes, in practical application however, not so much. It's true that 'GR theory' by itself is a 'theory'. When however you add a couple or three *hypothetical entities* to the formulas, it's not really a 'theory' anymore. It's more like a dressed up hypothesis in 'theory' looking clothing.

All theories are based upon principles in which we can see the end result of that said theory.

Ok. But then there can be parts of any "theory" that become hypothetical. Say for instance when one mixes a hypothetical entity like 'dark energy' within that GR math formula. Now we've inserted a *hypothetical* into a "theory". What do we now call that new entity if not a 'hypothesis"? Most cosmology concepts fall into that category, as well as a few particle physics theories, most notably SUSY hypotheses.

Science is a theoretic in its claims not hypothetical.

How so, say for instance in relationship to M-theory (actually a pure hypothesis but they actually call it "M-Theory by the way )?

Any hypothesis holds no absolute validity in science when dealing with set facts.

I'm not so sure, particularly as it relates to 'big bang' concepts and concepts that appear to be held "sacred" within the scientific community. You're right as it relates to particle physics theory, but there's still a big push to find evidence of SUSY theory at LHC in 2015. IMO LHC has already justified it's budget by what we've already found. Anything else would be a bonus of course, but I could pretty much care less if they find anything new in terms of justifying my tax dollars.

If however they don't find anything new, the so called 'Queen of physics' ends up on the street.

Religions give claims with no said factual basis for it nor are they based upon observable principles often.

That's actually true of hypothetical physics in most cases, particularly as it relates to 'how did we get here" branches of physics.

Any observable principles is already known at a secular level. So al that is left is theological claims and all theological claims are hypothetical and almost always bias in accordance to the claims set from the source(Bible, Gita or Tawrat) before they can be substantiated for.

Exactly what scientific substantiation exists for M-theory right now in your opinion?

So religion can only make claims on a hypothetical level and all of such hypothetical claims have been superseded by theoretical ones the majority of the time.

I frankly see no fundamental difference between something like M-theory and any supernatural concept of God. The seem like six of one, half dozen of the other in terms of falsification or verification. I'm more interested in what others might accept as 'evidence' for these types of 'hypothetical' ideas.

Theory ALWAYS beats hypothesis when placed upon paper or textual analysis. Until the hypothesis can be substantiated for by a common principles or newly acquired fact it is a hypothesis and never theory.

In terms of what shows up in the lab, yes, that always trumps hypothetical entities in my book as well. Unfortunately huge swaths, and 95 percent of the "queen of physics' fails to show up in such experiments on Earth. There therefore has to be some other (besides purely empirical) concept of evidence that we might apply to something that fails to show up in the lab, like a "Supernatural' concept of God, and a hypothetical entity of physics.

What is it?

 

[Heissonear]

This fallacy in arguing the existence of god is called Russell's teapot.

Just because nobody can prove the existence of your claim should not compel you to believe in what you claim. As I am not obliged to believe in you as I am unaware of your sincerity or the nature of your behavior(thus existence).

Any claim any Christian makes can be refuted with a gentle application of Solipsism.

Statements like these show obvious traits of only being a debator, a presenter of "wisdom of words", mere words of persuasion from men.

I Corinthians 2:4,5
"And my message was not with wise and persuasive words, but in demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith should not rest on man's wisdom, but in God's power"