The Origin of the Gods

[Eudaimonist]

What say you people about the origin of the gods? Are they only myths?

Yes, almost certainly.

If so, how are they only myths? What is your evidence?

Human beings are myth-makers. We as a species love to invent and tell stories. Nearly every home in Western nations has a television where we are able to listen to and watch stories unfold. Storytelling is possibly our defining characteristic as a species.

Since there is no evidence that gods do exist, the identification of gods with myths is the best explanation for those stories. The burden of proof of the existence of gods is squarely on the shoulders of theists. Atheists don't have disprove anything.

If that evidence is lacking, internally inconsistent, or otherwise implausible, how willing are you to accept that the gods are in fact real?

Not willing at all, since no claim is strengthened merely by the weakness of counterarguments. If one can't come up with a good argument that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't actually exist, that doesn't strengthen the case in favor of the FSM.

If I were to say to you: isn't it clear that the FSM is merely a story told to make a philosophical point? What would be your reaction? Why isn't that sufficient explanation?

Personally, I have no doubt that the gods exist. I believe there is evidence for their existence

Great, let's have that evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

Why, precisely, would the gods be useful or helpful to risen apes? God is in many ways a lofty abstraction. When it comes to things like survival on a day to day basis, foraging for food and being constantly on the move, it seems unlikely to me that such a lofty concept as God should ever have been relevant to stone aged people (as we usually conceive of them) as it would not have fulfilled any discernible role for them. So why make it up?

1. Why should stone aged people have even pondered where the world came from? It is, here and now, a brutal and challenging place, why speculate about it more than that? This would never have made any sense to me, that a God "made" the world - were I foraging human, that is. This argument or line of thought would only make sense as a relatively recent phenomenon - such as an Uncaused Cause argument, as they formulated in the Middle Ages. Otherwise, I am struggling for my next meal, and the concept of God creating the world (which requires a complex notion of causality lest you are willing to subscribe to the notion of creation ex nihilo - also a relatively advanced concept) is a non-starter. Also, the idea that the world "came to be" is less intuitive than that it always was. Unless you were inculcated from an early age that it indeed was created.



2. Why should I, again, as a stone aged person, ponder where life "came from"? It makes more sense to think that life always was, and that it consists of mating, sleeping, eating and defending. So again, a non-starter.



3. This is somewhat better, but the problem is: there is no evidence for this - that stone aged people would, on the basis of a "deeper meaning" have made up, by a complex rationale of sorts, that a God had something to do with it for which they had not seen any direct evidence (such as meeting up with God, say). They might have used made up concepts such as "spirits" to illustrate elements of their own psyche. But we have that, and it's called "art." Why should art therapy have ever risen beyond a form of catharsis for cave-dwellers doing finger painting? How is that evidence of all the "extravagant" claims made by primitive people that Gods, not only exist, but came to the earth and revealed themselves in a myriad of ways? No, this is not adequate.



4. At one point did the nature spirits, which seem so fickle and chaotic, deliver the divine law then? This is a relatively recent phenomenon as well which requires a fairly complex set of ideas to get off the ground. I don't think primitives would have been capable of it: that God is a supremely Wise and Good Judge of all. And yet, oddly, it seems to be in existence (from my perspective at least) before the Abrahamic era.



5. Even such experiences as these need a direct referent for otherwise primitives would not be [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] enough to mistake "good feelings" for a Deity. They would have had to hallucinate that deity outright, which in groups is unlikely (a lone lunatic would have been outcast). Otherwise, it would have been just a "good feeling" on a par with a drug fix.



6. Again, not obvious for the reasons aforementioned. Primitives do not have so advanced an idea of teleology.



7. Beauty simply is. Why not stop there? Surely a primitive would.



8. Why think about death as opposed to try and avoid it? Death is nothing, death is nothingness. It is common, so enjoy things now. And even if primitives would have been so grief-stricken at the death of their relatives that they imagined a hereafter, God would not have been the resultant theoretical construct. At least, there would be no evidence for this.



9. See #4. In any case, this does not require a concept of God(s). Karma is good enough. A lightning strike or a bad trip.



10. Again, looking too far ahead. The mind just "is" for primitives.



11. Again, the "isness" of the universe. Primitives have nothing to compare coincidences to. The world is a topsy-turvy place, so why should God explain anything? If good happens, good happened and that is what matters!



Except, interestingly, God is largely irrelevant to answering all the 11 questions that you gave me. At least, for primitive savages. So, where did these Gods really come from?

As I said, I was thinking more of Abrahamic type religions.

When you start going back to is hard to know what you mean by gods. If you go right back to hunting and gathering there may be no recognizable ideas of gods, but rather just spirits. So it depends what age and what sort of ideas you are talking about.

Because the other set of reasons trying to explain away their existence is entirely lacking. Thus, the evidence, by default, lands on the side of Gods being real and having revealed themselves in the past.

Well no. Even if there were no good theories for where god ideas came from, that doesn't mean the gods actually existed.

 

[quatona]

What say you people about the origin of the gods? Are they only myths? If so, how are they only myths? What is your evidence? If that evidence is lacking, internally inconsistent, or otherwise implausible, how willing are you to accept that the gods are in fact real?

The only way I experience gods are as them being ideas of other persons. That´s what I have plenty of evidence for, and that´s how gods affect my life. That´s all I can work from.
As for the question whether these gods exist outside of people´s minds - I don´t know, and actually I don´t care much. I simply don´t see the relevance of the issue.

 

[WonderBeat]

It's not stated at all.

Case in point,

This is an argument from ignorance. You can't personally conceive of how a God belief could be derived from an observation of nature. That is not indicative of any fact, other than your own lack of imagination.

Actually, it is stated. But underneath your nose as it were.

Instead of explaining my position again however it would be better to restate it in the form of an analogy:

Let's say you were presented with a given shape: an octagon, square, etc. Let's say that that was all you were presented with your entire existence. Could you, on the basis of receiving those few intellectual impressions, conceive of other shapes: triangles, rectangles, etc, due to imagination? Possibly.

Let's say that, on the other hand, you were presented with only a yellow blotch. Could you conceive of a smiley face on the basis of that blotch? No. What is the difference between the first case and the second? The difference is, that there is no logical, natural link between the first case and the second case. Your mind does not instantly conclude on the basis of one the other. Even after prolonged periods of time, the thought processes entailed would be arbitrary.

Just so, it is utterly senseless to conclude, merely on the basis of a world (a yellow blotch) a formful, specific deity over and beyond the world (a smiley face). There is no natural correlation from one to the other. No natural linkage from A to B. Now, you may say there are other elements besides a world which would enter into consideration of the formation of a deity, but that then would have to be corroborative in a variety of ways (something not proven, by the way): not just that "there is a world, thus God made it." This does not make any sense without a larger context or playing field. So, regarding this very specific question by Paradoxum, I find it not very compelling with regard to stone aged people.

Yes, it really, really is. Actually, it's a perfect textbook example.

In principle it is not. At least not with regard to this very specific question.

 

[WonderBeat]

The same reason why basketball players believe in "hot hands", anti-vaccers believe vaccines cause autism, etc. Because there was some unexplained phenomenon that superficially appeared to correlate with a certain event in someone's life.

Conjecture.

I mean, why else would dancing on dry days make the rain come sooner? The most logical conclusion with the information readily available is that some agent (the spirit of a human or an animal) was interacting with or controlling the natural world. Eventually, the preponderance of unexplained phenomena caused the development of a variety of mini-deities that controlled the weather, the crops, domesticated animals, pregnant women, and Things that Stick in Drawers.

More conjecture about the source of deities. Notice how you segway into talk of rituals. I did not have rituals in mind but deities only. I do not think there is at all an obvious connection between the two. So, on the basis of no real evidence, you assert these things. It is worthwhile to note that all you have proven here is that causality works in strange ways in the minds of humans, not that there is an actual God supervising the world's affairs.

Also, I don't believe that there is any solid evidence that organised religion started before the development of static human communities and societies.

Fair enough. But the antecedents for religious worship (in the thesis of evolutionary religious psychology) would have been before this, correct? If I can show that they are groundless, then that would point toward a shallow basis for religion to have emerged. Also, you automatically assume religion would have simply "sprouted" into existence with the development of fixed settlements. What is your evidence for this claim?

See above. By the same logic, you could ask why anyone would ever develop mathematics and drama in such an inimical environment? The answer is that they wouldn't, and they didn't. Organised theories of origins and religions probably only came after the development of permanent abodes and stability in the human lifestyle.

Where is your evidence for this claim? Why would people develop something false like this on purpose? Where are the background assumptions which lead ineluctably to this conclusion?

See above.

No, superstitions are not good enough. Why tack a deity onto an unusual perception of causality? That is superfluous and not enough to warrant belief. A does not lead ineluctably to B again, remember? So, no evidential support here either.

Well, in the case of Classical deities, they didn't, really. As you point out, they were fickle and chaotic, and it was only in the relative safety of developed human habitats that any kind of 'law' was observed; and in these cases, the earliest codices of law were, as far as I know, secular in origin and more developed by one person, or a small number of people drawing on a variety of human influences, rather than being "religiously inspired" (for example Hammurabi & Draco). The ideas that the strong protect the weak and that murder is wrong aren't exclusive to religious law - in fact, I would think it far more likely that religious codices were inspired by secular law more than the other way round.

More conjecture. You have no real proof that it wasn't the other way around and that the Gods really did come and give the law. This is only one theory: that social groups ratified and divinized the law. Where is the evidence for this view?

I'm not sure why you would believe that religions just "pop up" in the form that we recognise them. Just like the things people see during sleep paralysis and lucid dreaming experiences are hugely dependent on societal context, so to would hallucinogenic experiences. I don't find it at all unlikely that the collective hallucinations of thousands of people over hundreds of years would produce some pretty coherent stuff, especially given the tendency of people to talk about their experiences.

It comes down to a matter of evidence again. Where is your proof that out of radical incoherency coherency could be attained? Otherwise I am not convinced.

Why not? It's not like we're much better.

This does not prove a deity at all in full, even if someone could glean there is someone behind the scenes doing things, it would not say much about him. And one lone speculator in a group would not be able to convince everyone.

I agree, and I don't think this is a compelling example. A better one would be the traditional argument of irreducible complexity; in contemporary science it is no longer compelling, but to a prescientific individual it certainly must be.

This again would entail only a more complex notion of the world, not a maker. For that I am still adamant you require more inputs/cues.

See above.

I still don't see any corroboration.

Who regulates karma?

Why should that lone outlier of a question be corroborative of a cohesive mental map of deities?

Where does the soul come from?

Again, even this is not sufficient for me... see above.

I don't really understand this one.

Things happen that are "lucky" and "unlucky." Plugging in a deity is thoroughly unwarranted.

Well, no. The questions demonstrate that if deities were invented, then they could have been used for various purposes. This is not to say that these were the purposes for which the deities were originally created (genetic fallacy), or that the existence of these purposes entails the invention of gods (affirming the consequent). But it means that there are a set of functions that a pantheon of deities could help a prescientific person to explain.

I would agree with everything here except the last past, as I see no self-corroborating, cohesive evidence to think deities were made up.

You misunderstand. You assume that you have made atheism (used for conciseness) less plausible than theism. That is not necessarily the case.

One has to question the source of the Gods. If one source is thoroughly lacking to account for them, than another explanation must be found. The field is thus narrowed in favor of theism.

 

[WonderBeat]

So let me get this straight, is this the logic of your argument?


Premise 1. Gods exist.
Premise 2. The lack of evidence that gods are myth is in itself the evidence.
Conclusion-So therefore gods exist.

More like:

Premise 1: The naturalistic explanation for the source of our God concepts is lacking or incomplete.
Premise 2: Deities could not have emerged out of nowhere but have some basis.
Premise 3: If the naturalistic explanation is inadequate than one must turn to a different explanation.
Premise 4: If the naturalistic explanation is false than one must turn to a supernaturalistic explanation as there is no middle ground.

Conclusion: The Gods must exist, or must have existed.

 

[WonderBeat]

Yes, almost certainly.

Not even scantly given the evidence I have received for such a view.

Human beings are myth-makers. We as a species love to invent and tell stories. Nearly every home in Western nations has a television where we are able to listen to and watch stories unfold. Storytelling is possibly our defining characteristic as a species.

More conjecture. How do you know that "stories" preceded the Gods? In short, you do not. So this doesn't even count as evidence actually.

Since there is no evidence that gods do exist, the identification of gods with myths is the best explanation for those stories. The burden of proof of the existence of gods is squarely on the shoulders of theists. Atheists don't have disprove anything.

I may have the burden of proof when it comes to proving their existence, but you likewise have the burden of proof to show me that myths are the source of the gods and not the other way around. That is anyway what I'm focusing on in this thread. Is there a middle way? Nope.

Not willing at all, since no claim is strengthened merely by the weakness of counterarguments. If one can't come up with a good argument that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't actually exist, that doesn't strengthen the case in favor of the FSM.

The difference between the Gods and the FSM is that the latter is a patent invention used for satire. You have to deal with the Gods explanation-wise in some way, shape or form. If naturalistically, you are at a loss, you can either continue kicking a dead dog or try some other, better route.

If I were to say to you: isn't it clear that the FSM is merely a story told to make a philosophical point? What would be your reaction? Why isn't that sufficient explanation?

It is. Why wouldn't it be? It's an entirely unrelated example to the question of Gods.

Great, let's have that evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The only problem is... I am discovering that my positive evidence is looking a whole lot like the shoddy evidence used in support of the God-as-Myths hypothesis. So we have two competing (positive) arguments for the appearance of Gods on the scene. How to adjudicate between the two? This I am not sure of.

I think my best evidence comes in the form of lack of support for the one you are a proponent of. Thus, my best argument is a negative argument.

 

[WonderBeat]

Well no. Even if there were no good theories for where god ideas came from, that doesn't mean the gods actually existed.

In formal logic this is the case. In the case of real world examples however, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left must be possible. I think that I have eliminated naturalistic explanations to a reasonable extent. Thus, what is left that is possible, and cogent, is that the Gods indeed, are real and revealed themselves.....

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Wow. Where to start?

Just so, it is utterly senseless to conclude, merely on the basis of a world (a yellow blotch) a formful, specific deity over and beyond the world (a smiley face).

First, that's not remotely analogous. In the yellow blotch instance, you have no sensory input from which to derive the concept of a 'smiley face'. In the second instance, you have an entire world of sensory input.

Second, this assumes that the earliest god concepts were supernatural and incorporeal. Even if they were, though, you still haven't identified an actual physical barrier to the conception of deities. All you've effectively said is 'it seems unlikely to me', which is still an argument from ignorance.

Third, your assertion does nothing to explain mutually exclusive god concepts from disparate cultures - something very easily explained if these gods are nothing more than anthropomorphized objects of imagination.

Fourth, and most blatant, reality disagrees with you. People ascribe magical causes to natural events all the time. The only required context is a pattern-seeking brain presented with an apparent mystery. Religions are still formed around this phenomenon today - see cargo cults.

Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In principle it is not.

In reality, it is.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

People ascribe magical causes to natural events all the time.
In reality, it is.

Either natural events are caused or not. If so the cause must be non natural. If not then natural events have no cause, because a cause must be different from the effect. Logical? Therefore if naturalism is true, nature has no cause, nothing is required to produce it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Premise 4: If the naturalistic explanation is false than one must turn to a supernaturalistic explanation as there is no middle ground.

Every one of your premises is flawed, but this one is the most blatantly fallacious.

Even granting the best case scenario for your premise - that the naturalistic explanation is in fact false - it does not magically lend credence to your 'supernatural' assertion. You still need to support it with evidence.

Your conclusion is necessarily erroneous.

 

[WonderBeat]

Wow. Where to start?

The beginning of course!

First, that's not remotely analogous. In the yellow blotch instance, you have no sensory input from which to derive the concept of a 'smiley face'. In the second instance, you have an entire world of sensory input.

The world is one. The question was, "where did the world come from?" and I am saying, on the basis of that one fact, one cannot come to a conclusion that there is a deity behind it. Corroboration from other sources is speculation, and is actually a different argument altogether.

Second, this assumes that the earliest god concepts were supernatural and incorporeal. Even if they were, though, you still haven't identified an actual physical barrier to the conception of deities. All you've effectively said is 'it seems unlikely to me', which is still an argument from ignorance.

It is unlikely on the basis of analysis, by which I use the means of common sense at my disposal. To an even better extent in my opinion than the pet-theorizers who take the opposite view...

Third, your assertion does nothing to explain mutually exclusive god concepts from disparate cultures - something very easily explained if these gods are nothing more than anthropomorphized objects of imagination.

I don't have to. Not when the evidence is so blatantly poor for the Gods-As-Myths Hypothesis. Although, I am planning to explain more about cultures and their deities in a while. I believe the Gods are many and are thus not exclusive of each other.

Fourth, and most blatant, reality disagrees with you. People ascribe magical causes to natural events all the time. The only required context is a pattern-seeking brain presented with an apparent mystery. Religions are still formed around this phenomenon today - see cargo cults.

Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In reality, it is.

Where are those people getting their cues from. Answer: the past.

 

[WonderBeat]

Even granting the best case scenario for your premise - that the naturalistic explanation is in fact false - it does not magically lend credence to your 'supernatural' assertion. You still need to support it with evidence.

Your conclusion is necessarily erroneous.

I suppose even if the naturalistic explanation is false (which I think it is) one could say that there are supernaturalistic obstacles to belief in deities. So, actually, I think you might be right.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I suppose even if the naturalistic explanation is false (which I think it is) one could say that there are supernaturalistic obstacles to belief in deities.

Foremost of which being your lack of

- A coherent definition of 'supernatural'
- A methodology for gleaning 'supernatural' information
- Evidence for the existence anything 'supernatural'

In that order.

So, actually, I think you might be right.

If I'm right, your conclusion is necessarily false. There's nothing to address until you remedy this.

 

[WonderBeat]

I'm done debating.

It's obvious that you are not interested in being the least bit charitable with what I have to say.

Krishna Chalisa (NEW) - YouTube

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Conjecture.



More conjecture about the source of deities. Notice how you segway into talk of rituals. I did not have rituals in mind but deities only. I do not think there is at all an obvious connection between the two. So, on the basis of no real evidence, you assert these things. It is worthwhile to note that all you have proven here is that causality works in strange ways in the minds of humans, not that there is an actual God supervising the world's affairs.



Fair enough. But the antecedents for religious worship (in the thesis of evolutionary religious psychology) would have been before this, correct? If I can show that they are groundless, then that would point toward a shallow basis for religion to have emerged. Also, you automatically assume religion would have simply "sprouted" into existence with the development of fixed settlements. What is your evidence for this claim?



Where is your evidence for this claim? Why would people develop something false like this on purpose? Where are the background assumptions which lead ineluctably to this conclusion?




No, superstitions are not good enough. Why tack a deity onto an unusual perception of causality? That is superfluous and not enough to warrant belief. A does not lead ineluctably to B again, remember? So, no evidential support here either.



More conjecture. You have no real proof that it wasn't the other way around and that the Gods really did come and give the law. This is only one theory: that social groups ratified and divinized the law. Where is the evidence for this view?



It comes down to a matter of evidence again. Where is your proof that out of radical incoherency coherency could be attained? Otherwise I am not convinced.



This does not prove a deity at all in full, even if someone could glean there is someone behind the scenes doing things, it would not say much about him. And one lone speculator in a group would not be able to convince everyone.



This again would entail only a more complex notion of the world, not a maker. For that I am still adamant you require more inputs/cues.




I still don't see any corroboration.




Why should that lone outlier of a question be corroborative of a cohesive mental map of deities?




Again, even this is not sufficient for me... see above.




Things happen that are "lucky" and "unlucky." Plugging in a deity is thoroughly unwarranted.




I would agree with everything here except the last past, as I see no self-corroborating, cohesive evidence to think deities were made up.



One has to question the source of the Gods. If one source is thoroughly lacking to account for them, than another explanation must be found. The field is thus narrowed in favor of theism.

You keep saying that I only have conjecture; but I have no idea where you got the quaint notion that you somehow have more than this.

 

[WonderBeat]

You keep saying that I only have conjecture; but I have no idea where you got the quaint notion that you somehow have more than this.

Perhaps my position is no better.

 

[Davian]

I was referring to a hypothetical of something I happen to believe is true.
You have the free will to take it or leave it.

That you believe it does not make it true, or a fact.

I am still waiting for you to engage with the comments I made which make for a cumulative case that the default position that the Gods are myths is baloney. You don't seem to care. Thus, it is arguable whether you care about the actual truth of the matter.

I just read it over again. You don't seem to make a case of it.

If you don't state your case in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis, there is not much I can do with it.

I already have substantiated the claim, by my response to Paradoxum and my utter demolishment of the opposition's claims of "myths."

The claim that gods are only myths and the claim that gods are real are two separate claims. The falsification of one does not prove the other, and you did not falsify the "Gods are myths" position.

I remain ignostic on the subject of "gods". Other than as characters in books, you will need to define what you mean by "real".

Nope. I am asking you to assess which position is better.

Paradoxum's position is backed by by both scientific consensus and consensus of opinion (notwithstanding claims of exceptions).

Your claim - that they are real - has no defined parameters, other than what I have read of your opinion. I do not know what your position is.

So you admit my position is the best one? Thank you.

What grade are you in?

And what is your response given that the view that the Gods are myths doesn't hold water?

It has no need to "hold water".

I have no issue with evolution. I did not find your point substantial or well-argued. Could you please elaborate and tell me what context you are coming from?

Religion is a natural phenomenon. It appears to have evolved along with, as part of, human culture.

"There is general agreement among scientists that a propensity to engage in religious behavior evolved early in human history. However, there is disagreement on the exact mechanisms that drove the evolution of the religious mind. There are two schools of thought. One is that religion itself evolved due to natural selection and is an adaptation, in which case religion conferred some sort of evolutionary advantage. Alternatively, religious beliefs and behaviors may have emerged as by-products of other adaptive traits without initially being selected for because of their own benefits."

link

That we do not know the exact mechanisms is not important. The point is, it has explanatory power, where "God did it" has none.

I am asking you to assess which position is better: that Gods are real, or they are myths. If the latter doesn't hold up, is there a third option?

"Gods are real" doesn't mean anything to me.

Are they real, but of no scientific significance?

Are they real, but indistinguishable from nonexistent?

You will need to work on defining what you mean here.

This example is simply not applicable because I'm not asking you to prove a negative.

So you now admit that you have no evidence for the Earth not being covered with invisible immaterial giant marshmallows?

How is your "case" different?

Oh I am. That is simply one proposition which I take to be true.

The point is, do you wish for it to be taken seriously by others?

I'm done debating.

Where had you started?

It's obvious that you are not interested in being the least bit charitable with what I have to say.

Perhaps if you could define your position better your ideas would not be in need of charity.

 

[madaz]

More like:

Premise 1: The naturalistic explanation for the source of our God concepts is lacking or incomplete.
Premise 2: Deities could not have emerged out of nowhere but have some basis.
Premise 3: If the naturalistic explanation is inadequate than one must turn to a different explanation.
Premise 4: If the naturalistic explanation is false than one must turn to a supernaturalistic explanation as there is no middle ground.

Conclusion: The Gods must exist, or must have existed.

Wonderbeat - Do you not see the obvious flaw in your argument?

 

[Paradoxum]

In formal logic this is the case. In the case of real world examples however, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left must be possible. I think that I have eliminated naturalistic explanations to a reasonable extent. Thus, what is left that is possible, and cogent, is that the Gods indeed, are real and revealed themselves.....

It doesn't even have to be formal logic, it is just generally a bad idea in serious topics to assume something is true just because other explanations haven't been good enough yet. For a long time this would have meant people would have believed alot of clearly unscientific things. If you think this way you can easily be wrong. That is ok if you don't care if you believe in a fairytale, but if you want to believe the truth you need reasoning in favour of your gods.

Even then, I doubt you have tackled the serious academic explanations of gods. I also have given an explanation for the very primitive gods you were thinking of (as I was talking about the more advanced monotheistic God ideas).

Sadly I don't have time to look into that right now, so I'll have to leave you to deal with the others.

Also, sorry I didn't reply more to your big post to me in the beginning. I've had alot of work on.

Paradoxum's position is backed by by both scientific consensus and consensus of opinion (notwithstanding claims of exceptions).

I wasn't sure if I was making stuff up a bit.