Evidentialism

[ianb321red]

Consider the following experiment:

-Respondents: 2 professors both from exactly the same discipline or sub discipline/ specialism within the field of science. Both respondents have as close as possible the same academic record of achievement, have published peer reviewed journals and written books on their field or specialism

-Task: both respondents are asked to sit in separate rooms for 2 hours and must review exactly the same scientific articles, extracts from books and other materials. The articles cover a broad range of scientific topics, are current and represent what the majority of the scientific community accept.

Here's the question:

One of the professors is a theist and the other is a non theist.
When presented with exactly the same scientific evidence about where current scientific thinking is, and what science currently accepts as being true, they would be asked whether this scientific evidence support the claim that a god exists or not?

What would be the outcome of this question? Would both professors given they have different philosophical outlooks be able to review, assess and understand the evidence the same way?

If not, then why not?
If a belief (in God) cannot be arrived at by reviewing and understanding evidence; at least what is accepted as evidence by some, then why is this not possible for everyone?

I am suggesting that in a like-for-like experiment such as the simplistic one described above, it can be demonstrated that evidence is not the primary basis for a theistic belief. Therefore, the rebuttal from the non theist that there is "no evidence" can easily been shown to be a false rebuttal.

Any views on this?

 

[variant]

What would be the outcome of this question? Would both professors given they have different philosophical outlooks be able to review, assess and understand the evidence the same way?

There isn't a scientific discipline investigating the question of Gods existence so the articles you suggest in your question don't exist.

The best science can do for us now is "we don't know" and everyone who is intellectually honest about the question will come to that conclusion no matter their belief system.

 

[KCfromNC]

Here's the question:

One of the professors is a theist and the other is a non theist.
When presented with exactly the same scientific evidence about where current scientific thinking is, and what science currently accepts as being true, they would be asked whether this scientific evidence support the claim that a god exists or not?

What would be the outcome of this question?

Probably them wondering what god you're asking about.

 

[ianb321red]

There isn't a scientific discipline investigating the question of Gods existence so the articles you suggest in your question don't exist.

The best science can do for us now is "we don't know" and everyone who is intellectually honest about the question will come to that conclusion no matter their belief system.

So why do I hear things from the likes of Peter Atkins saying there is "not a shred of evidence" for god(s)?

I didn't say there was specific scientific discipline - remember my post alluded to a broad range of scientific disciplines elements of which can be used to put together a cumulative case.

 

[ianb321red]

Probably them wondering what god you're asking about.

So they have mutually exclusive reasoning for not believing in each of the possible gods then?

 

[variant]

So why do I hear things from the likes of Peter Atkins saying there is "not a shred of evidence" for god(s)?

There probably isn't. Gods are pretty poorly defined entities in the first place; so we would first have to know what to expect when one was around before we would go about showing one existed. Generally the religious define God in an unfalsifiable manner putting it beyond the realm of science so the point is moot.

The problems inherent in your setup in this thread are pretty apparent though, you don't seem to see the epistemological trouble the two people might have in making or reviewing a case for God. These problems aren't just because they believe different things, they are just problems with the concept and how one would evidence it.

I didn't say there was specific scientific discipline - remember my post alluded to a broad range of scientific disciplines elements of which can be used to put together a cumulative case.

So, present the conclusive scientific evidence for the existence of God.

If we had that, there wouldn't be a issue here.

People don't base their belief in God on a rigorous review of objective evidence, that's not why believers believe.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I am suggesting that in a like-for-like experiment such as the simplistic one described above, it can be demonstrated that evidence is not the primary basis for a theistic belief. Therefore, the rebuttal from the non theist that there is "no evidence" can easily been shown to be a false rebuttal.

Any views on this?

To skip to the end, if you're suggesting that people believe in gods due to personal opinion or other subjective judgment, rather than due to any evidence, that's fine with me. However, I don't think it's the nontheistic position you are undermining.

Sure, saying that there is "no evidence" does not affect the theist's position. But the theist's position is pretty weak.

Theist: I believe in gods for subjective, personal reasons.
Nontheist: Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

This sort of fideism is immune from attack, but it has zero power to persuade.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Consider the following experiment:

-Respondents: 2 professors both from exactly the same discipline or sub discipline/ specialism within the field of science. Both respondents have as close as possible the same academic record of achievement, have published peer reviewed journals and written books on their field or specialism

-Task: both respondents are asked to sit in separate rooms for 2 hours and must review exactly the same scientific articles, extracts from books and other materials. The articles cover a broad range of scientific topics, are current and represent what the majority of the scientific community accept.

Here's the question:

One of the professors is a theist and the other is a non theist.
When presented with exactly the same scientific evidence about where current scientific thinking is, and what science currently accepts as being true, they would be asked whether this scientific evidence support the claim that a god exists or not?

What would be the outcome of this question? Would both professors given they have different philosophical outlooks be able to review, assess and understand the evidence the same way?

If not, then why not?
If a belief (in God) cannot be arrived at by reviewing and understanding evidence; at least what is accepted as evidence by some, then why is this not possible for everyone?

I am suggesting that in a like-for-like experiment such as the simplistic one described above, it can be demonstrated that evidence is not the primary basis for a theistic belief. Therefore, the rebuttal from the non theist that there is "no evidence" can easily been shown to be a false rebuttal.

Any views on this?

I'm not sure what you're asking...

Are you saying both scientists have being presented with new.evidence that and exists? Or...

Are you saying that the two scientists are presented with all the current evidence that god exists (none)? You do realize that without any evidence there part about "current thinking" hi moot also? That pretty much shortens the question to.."what do you think the answers would be if you asked an atheist and theist scientist if there was evidenced of god's existence?"

My answer is....if they were both being professionally honest, they would both answer "no". I don't even think the theist would have an issue with this.

I do believe that belief for the existence of god can be arrived at by evidence. That's how I arrived at my beliefs about god. I just happen to also know that it's not the only way to arrive at a belief about god's existence.

 

[variant]

I am suggesting that in a like-for-like experiment such as the simplistic one described above, it can be demonstrated that evidence is not the primary basis for a theistic belief. Therefore, the rebuttal from the non theist that there is "no evidence" can easily been shown to be a false rebuttal.

Any views on this?

We can't evidence you out of a position you didn't evidence yourself into.

It doesn't help your case that you have admittedly low standards (and are stubborn about your subjective conclusions).

 

[Paradoxum]

It depends how you define God. If you thin Zeus is God, and he creates lightning, then that might be disproven by science. If God is a deist God that does nothing, then science has nothing to say on the matter. If your idea of God is in between, then the scientific conclusion will probably be 'I don't know', or inconclusive.

 

[quatona]

Consider the following experiment:

-Respondents: 2 professors both from exactly the same discipline or sub discipline/ specialism within the field of science. Both respondents have as close as possible the same academic record of achievement, have published peer reviewed journals and written books on their field or specialism

-Task: both respondents are asked to sit in separate rooms for 2 hours and must review exactly the same scientific articles, extracts from books and other materials. The articles cover a broad range of scientific topics, are current and represent what the majority of the scientific community accept.

Here's the question:

One of the professors is a theist and the other is a non theist.
When presented with exactly the same scientific evidence about where current scientific thinking is, and what science currently accepts as being true, they would be asked whether this scientific evidence support the claim that a god exists or not?

What would be the outcome of this question? Would both professors given they have different philosophical outlooks be able to review, assess and understand the evidence the same way?

I suspect that - given they are both serious scientists - they won´t answer the question before being given a workable definition of "god", for purposes of this question.

I am suggesting that in a like-for-like experiment such as the simplistic one described above, it can be demonstrated that evidence is not the primary basis for a theistic belief. Therefore, the rebuttal from the non theist that there is "no evidence" can easily been shown to be a false rebuttal.

I must admit that - even if I were to accept your premises - I am unable to follow your logic here. Maybe you have omitted some steps of your logical chain?
But maybe I´m just not getting what exactly you mean by "false rebuttal". Are you saying the statement must be false, or are you saying that declaring the subject of your belief to be beyond evidence automatically shelters the belief from being scrutinized? Or are you saying something completely different?