Skepticism And Atheism As Default

[mymistake]

 

...

Leo, I see the parallel with people who believe in Bigfoot. Imagine you are trying to write software to simulate human reasoning and behavior in regards to belief systems: atheism vs theism, Bigfootism vs Abigfootism, etc. How would you do that?

 

So that's what I've been trying to explore in this thread. This whole idea that "not believing" is the default makes no sense to me, because the question can be negated to turn "not believing" into "believing the negation". So I think the default is simply believing with the majority or alternatively believing what you already believe.

 

I don't seem to be persuading anybody else though. I'm hungry for some invisible unicorn cookies.

 

 

 

Maybe it is hard for you to grasp because you have not experienced it.  I've been a soft atheist and a hard atheist.  I remember what it was like before.  I can see the difference between my thinking.  Not believing and believing the negation are very different things to me. 

[directionless]

 

 

...

Leo, I see the parallel with people who believe in Bigfoot. Imagine you are trying to write software to simulate human reasoning and behavior in regards to belief systems: atheism vs theism, Bigfootism vs Abigfootism, etc. How would you do that?

 

So that's what I've been trying to explore in this thread. This whole idea that "not believing" is the default makes no sense to me, because the question can be negated to turn "not believing" into "believing the negation". So I think the default is simply believing with the majority or alternatively believing what you already believe.

 

I don't seem to be persuading anybody else though. I'm hungry for some invisible unicorn cookies.

 

 

 

Maybe it is hard for you to grasp because you have not experienced it.  I've been a soft atheist and a hard atheist.  I remember what it was like before.  I can see the difference between my thinking.  Not believing and believing the negation are very different things to me.

 

It's possible that I'm missing the distinction. I was hoping that by assigning probabilities to different models of reality we could represent soft atheism and other in-between beliefs. Like I might put 50% on metaphysical naturalism, 35% on a loving creator-type God, 5% on Christianity, 10% on pantheism.

 

I am aware that hard atheism might be based on perceived incoherency in theism whereas soft atheism might be based on lack of evidence. I don't personally have enough faith in my logic to use a perceived incoherency to reach 0% faith in theism.

 

Another problem is that theism is so hard to define. How can we define atheism relative to theism when it isn't well defined? That is another reason to use a list of well-defined models of reality with percentages IMO.

[Orbit]

 

 

...

Leo, I see the parallel with people who believe in Bigfoot. Imagine you are trying to write software to simulate human reasoning and behavior in regards to belief systems: atheism vs theism, Bigfootism vs Abigfootism, etc. How would you do that?

 

So that's what I've been trying to explore in this thread. This whole idea that "not believing" is the default makes no sense to me, because the question can be negated to turn "not believing" into "believing the negation". So I think the default is simply believing with the majority or alternatively believing what you already believe.

 

I don't seem to be persuading anybody else though. I'm hungry for some invisible unicorn cookies.

 

 

 

Maybe it is hard for you to grasp because you have not experienced it.  I've been a soft atheist and a hard atheist.  I remember what it was like before.  I can see the difference between my thinking.  Not believing and believing the negation are very different things to me. 

 

I agree. There's a difference between "I withhold belief in God because there is no evidence" and "There is no God". 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just to clarify my position as an apatheist:  I couldn't care less if a god or gods existed or not.  You may still accuse me of having an opinion, but unless you can demonstrate that indifference is a belief system, then you're simply wrong (and I forgive you).

[directionless]

Just to clarify my position as an apatheist:  I couldn't care less if a god or gods existed or not.  You may still accuse me of having an opinion, but unless you can demonstrate that indifference is a belief system, then you're simply wrong (and I forgive you).

I would say that apatheism demonstrates a very low confidence in any of the jealous God, heaven and hell types of religion. You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you.

 

So apatheism does imply a low opinion of Christianity, Islam, and any other "my way or the highway"-type religion.

 

Also apatheism implies a high confidence in metaphysical naturalism. How could the question of deities be uninteresting to you unless you believe metaphysical naturalism is true almost all the time?

[Orbit]

 

Just to clarify my position as an apatheist:  I couldn't care less if a god or gods existed or not.  You may still accuse me of having an opinion, but unless you can demonstrate that indifference is a belief system, then you're simply wrong (and I forgive you).

I would say that apatheism demonstrates a very low confidence in any of the jealous God, heaven and hell types of religion. You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you.

 

So apatheism does imply a low opinion of Christianity, Islam, and any other "my way or the highway"-type religion.

 

Also apatheism implies a high confidence in metaphysical naturalism. How could the question of deities be uninteresting to you unless you believe metaphysical naturalism is true almost all the time?

 

"You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you."

 

Why not? Prof can simply not care about Xtianity or Islam. Not caring is an option.

[directionless]

 

 

Just to clarify my position as an apatheist:  I couldn't care less if a god or gods existed or not.  You may still accuse me of having an opinion, but unless you can demonstrate that indifference is a belief system, then you're simply wrong (and I forgive you).

I would say that apatheism demonstrates a very low confidence in any of the jealous God, heaven and hell types of religion. You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you.

 

So apatheism does imply a low opinion of Christianity, Islam, and any other "my way or the highway"-type religion.

 

Also apatheism implies a high confidence in metaphysical naturalism. How could the question of deities be uninteresting to you unless you believe metaphysical naturalism is true almost all the time?

 

"You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you."

 

Why not? Prof can simply not care about Xtianity or Islam. Not caring is an option.

 

I would say that the possibility of eternal torment versus eternal happiness is so great that a sensible person couldn't be apathetic. Even if there are multiple heaven and hell Gods to choose from (Christianity and Islam), it would still be better to choose one of them and hope you get lucky instead of choosing nothing. Choosing nothing will certainly land you in hell if any of those religions are true.

 

So if a person is apathetic about religion it can only mean that person doesn't have any confidence in the heaven and hell religions IMO. (Of course some denominations of Christianity are universalists and an apatheist might believe in them as possibilities.)

[Orbit]

 

 

 

Just to clarify my position as an apatheist:  I couldn't care less if a god or gods existed or not.  You may still accuse me of having an opinion, but unless you can demonstrate that indifference is a belief system, then you're simply wrong (and I forgive you).

I would say that apatheism demonstrates a very low confidence in any of the jealous God, heaven and hell types of religion. You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you.

 

So apatheism does imply a low opinion of Christianity, Islam, and any other "my way or the highway"-type religion.

 

Also apatheism implies a high confidence in metaphysical naturalism. How could the question of deities be uninteresting to you unless you believe metaphysical naturalism is true almost all the time?

 

"You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you."

 

Why not? Prof can simply not care about Xtianity or Islam. Not caring is an option.

 

I would say that the possibility of eternal torment versus eternal happiness is so great that a sensible person couldn't be apathetic. Even if there are multiple heaven and hell Gods to choose from (Christianity and Islam), it would still be better to choose one of them and hope you get lucky instead of choosing nothing. Choosing nothing will certainly land you in hell if any of those religions are true.

 

So if a person is apathetic about religion it can only mean that person doesn't have any confidence in the heaven and hell religions IMO. (Of course some denominations of Christianity are universalists and an apatheist might believe in them as possibilities.)

 

So you're saying Prof isn't sensible because you don't understand his point of view. Still not being sensible is also an option.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

I will not discuss theism vs atheism vs soft atheism vs agnosticism et al as if God's existence is axiomatic and I need to build a case to support my minority position. Theists, you have failed for thousands of years to convince rational, logical, thinking people that your proposition for an invisible and undetectable deity is tenable. Sorry, it's not my problem, you have simply failed to make the case and it is proper that I reject your proposition. I do not hold an opposing belief, I hold no belief. Atheist is not the opposite of theist. Atheist shouldn't even be a word any more than Asasquatchist should be a word.

Imagine a world where everywhere you turn there is somebody offering you a chocolate chip cookie. You are forced to say "no thank you" over and over again.

 

How can you claim to have no opinion about chocolate chip cookies? You obviously don't like chocolate chip cookies for some reason. It is reasonable to ask what you have against chocolate chip cookies, don't you think?

 

Nobody can claim to simply lack an opinion about chocolate chip cookies under those circumstances.

 

 

I think someone can have no opinion about something. Until they give it a lot of thought. Then they will choose a point of view that suits them. It makes them feel good so they value that particular concept or way of thinking. They emotionally bond to it. It could be faith, science, or chocolate chip cookies...or the Green Bay Packers or the liberal platform. We love and hate anything and everything. I will call your evidence about your thing baloney while my evidence about my thing is rock solid! And then time goes by and some of us switch sides. :-)

 

I agree with what you are saying except that I think decisions force people to have an opinion - even if they don't feel ready to have an opinion. In an atheistic society like Norway or Japan, I suppose a person could have no opinion about Christianity, but in the US a person is forced to have an opinion. I turn am flipping channels on the TV and there is a Christian channel. I flip to the next channel as quickly as possible. That says something about my opinion of Christianity.

 

Using the Green Bay Packers as an example, what if somebody offers to bet you on the outcome of one of their games? If you bet - or even if you refuse to bet - your decision says something about your opinion of the Green Bay Packers prospects in that game IMO. You might be constantly researching and refining your opinion of the Green Bay Packers, but you must temporarily suspend that research to decide about this opportunity to bet on their game.

 

 

Well, if I refuse to bet it might say something about my opinion on the Packers...or my lack of cash. :-) I agree though that our opinions evolve. And yes to make a decision we use our opinion at that point in time to help make it. And yes, a decision indicates an opinion. 

 

Now what happens if we only have two channels, one has the 700 club and the other is an infomercial?  If we choose the infomercial is it because we have a secret fascination for them? Or is it because we didnt want to watch Pat Robertson? :-)

[midniterider]

 

 

Using the Green Bay Packers as an example...

NO! The Packers are known to exist and you can like them, support them, bet on them or ignore them. 

 

Rather than using the Packers as an example, it would be more appropriate to use another team - the Invisible Xanadu Honkers.

 

O.k. So let's go with the Invisible Xanadu Honkers. Let's say there are 2 billion Honkers fans that meet-up every Sunday. Maybe we even have a discussion forum where almost everybody is an ex-Honkers fan.

 

Can the ex-Honkers fans really say: "I simply lack belief in the Honkers. I need no reason to disbelieve in the Honkers. Disbelief is the default. It is your job to convince me that the Honkers exist. I don't need to explain why I don't believe in the Honkers anymore. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..." ?

 

I think a more reasonable view is that there is no universal default. Each person's default is whatever he/she currently believes. The Christian's default is Christianity. The Buddhist's default is Buddhism. The hard-atheist's default is hard-atheism. Everybody involved in the discussion should try to be skeptical of their default view, present arguments, listen to arguments, etc.

 

 

If someone is not aware of a concept, he will not be aware of the concept that disagrees or competes with it. If someone conceptualizes something, then its competing concept will become known when he starts asking questions about it.

 

If there is a default religious point of view at birth, what is the default political point of view at birth? What is the default point of view regarding broccoli? None can be had, until one is introduced to broccoli.

[midniterider]

 

...

Leo, I see the parallel with people who believe in Bigfoot. Imagine you are trying to write software to simulate human reasoning and behavior in regards to belief systems: atheism vs theism, Bigfootism vs Abigfootism, etc. How would you do that?

 

So that's what I've been trying to explore in this thread. This whole idea that "not believing" is the default makes no sense to me, because the question can be negated to turn "not believing" into "believing the negation". So I think the default is simply believing with the majority or alternatively believing what you already believe.

 

I don't seem to be persuading anybody else though. I'm hungry for some invisible unicorn cookies.

 

 

There are an infinite number of things which we are 'without.' But most of them are never conceived of nor are they given labels or considered defaults.

 

But let's assume for a moment that there is a default position of belief/non-belief. Is a default position automatically better than a chosen position? We're born naked by default but we tend to wear clothes more often than not. The default in this case is undesirable in the long term.

 

Here's a debate on the subject: http://www.debate.org/debates/Atheism-is-the-default-position./1/

 

I particularly like the heading Non-Belief is a Conclusion (which I think atheists here would agree and I think some atheists assign more value to atheism based on research and conclusion than a default, non-informed atheist opinion - if that makes any sense) and the heading Non-Belief is Different from Unawareness.

 

Really, the default vs non-default argument is splitting hairs but isn't what these debates are all about? :-)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Just to clarify my position as an apatheist:  I couldn't care less if a god or gods existed or not.  You may still accuse me of having an opinion, but unless you can demonstrate that indifference is a belief system, then you're simply wrong (and I forgive you).

I would say that apatheism demonstrates a very low confidence in any of the jealous God, heaven and hell types of religion. You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you.

 

So apatheism does imply a low opinion of Christianity, Islam, and any other "my way or the highway"-type religion.

 

Also apatheism implies a high confidence in metaphysical naturalism. How could the question of deities be uninteresting to you unless you believe metaphysical naturalism is true almost all the time?

 

"You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you."

 

Why not? Prof can simply not care about Xtianity or Islam. Not caring is an option.

 

I would say that the possibility of eternal torment versus eternal happiness is so great that a sensible person couldn't be apathetic. Even if there are multiple heaven and hell Gods to choose from (Christianity and Islam), it would still be better to choose one of them and hope you get lucky instead of choosing nothing. Choosing nothing will certainly land you in hell if any of those religions are true.

 

So if a person is apathetic about religion it can only mean that person doesn't have any confidence in the heaven and hell religions IMO. (Of course some denominations of Christianity are universalists and an apatheist might believe in them as possibilities.)

 

Patently untrue.  I could also care less if there's a heaven or a hell.  This leaves me in the distinct position of not having to force a choice in hopes of being right.

[directionless]

 

 

 

 

Just to clarify my position as an apatheist:  I couldn't care less if a god or gods existed or not.  You may still accuse me of having an opinion, but unless you can demonstrate that indifference is a belief system, then you're simply wrong (and I forgive you).

I would say that apatheism demonstrates a very low confidence in any of the jealous God, heaven and hell types of religion. You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you.

 

So apatheism does imply a low opinion of Christianity, Islam, and any other "my way or the highway"-type religion.

 

Also apatheism implies a high confidence in metaphysical naturalism. How could the question of deities be uninteresting to you unless you believe metaphysical naturalism is true almost all the time?

 

"You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you."

 

Why not? Prof can simply not care about Xtianity or Islam. Not caring is an option.

 

I would say that the possibility of eternal torment versus eternal happiness is so great that a sensible person couldn't be apathetic. Even if there are multiple heaven and hell Gods to choose from (Christianity and Islam), it would still be better to choose one of them and hope you get lucky instead of choosing nothing. Choosing nothing will certainly land you in hell if any of those religions are true.

 

So if a person is apathetic about religion it can only mean that person doesn't have any confidence in the heaven and hell religions IMO. (Of course some denominations of Christianity are universalists and an apatheist might believe in them as possibilities.)

 

Patently untrue.  I could also care less if there's a heaven or a hell.  This leaves me in the distinct position of not having to force a choice in hopes of being right.

 

I would argue that it is impossible to not care about the possibility of heaven vs hell. The only rational explanation for your behavior is that you assign an extremely low probability to the possibility that heaven and hell exist, and you assign a very large but non-infinite utility to reaching heaven instead of hell (that way you can multiply the two values and get a negligible expected utility for trying to escape hell).

 

Of course Orbit suggested that you might not be a sensible decision maker. Or maybe you completely devalue the future. For example if you are in the middle of a light sable duel with Darth Vader then you might be too busy to think about anything else.

 

So atheism is more than simply a lack of belief in theism. Atheists are confronted with religious theories and have alternative theories that they think are better for making decisions. Usually the alternative theory is metaphysical naturalism. Atheism is more than simply a lack of belief in all forms of theism.

[Vigile]

I would argue that it is impossible to not care about the possibility of heaven vs hell.

 

 

I don't understand apatheism either, but why would anyone outside of religion even think about something as weird and random as heaven and hell?  Should we care about the millions of other weird things humans have dreamed up over the years too?  Why worry about anything there is no evidence for? 

 

It has nothing at all to do with probabilities.  Steven King makes up scare shit all the time.  Do you assign probabilities to any of it being real or do you just rationally know these things are the products of King's imagination?  Why do you think the bible gets special privilege here over a King novel? 

[directionless]

 

I would argue that it is impossible to not care about the possibility of heaven vs hell.

I don't understand apatheism either, but why would anyone outside of religion even think about something as weird and random as heaven and hell? Should we care about the millions of other weird things humans have dreamed up over the years too? Why worry about anything there is no evidence for?

 

It has nothing at all to do with probabilities. Steven King makes up scare shit all the time. Do you assign probabilities to any of it being real or do you just rationally know these things are the products of King's imagination? Why do you think the bible gets special privilege here over a King novel?

 

Maybe I'm weird but there are lots of far-out theories rattling around in my head even though I assign them low probabilities - not every theory I have ever heard, but quite a few. I don't totally dismiss the possibility that Bigfoots are a species of furry space alien that enjoy vacationing on Earth.

 

In general though, it isn't possible to have no theory about the consequences of various actions when you must choose an action. You can't simply disbelieve in the theories that someone else presents, you must have your own theories. If you have your own theories then you ought to explain them and defend them when you are debating - just like everybody else. You shouldn't just sit back and snipe at other people who stick their necks out to present their theories. Nobody can claim to have "the default theory" that doesn't need to be defended. Nobody can claim to have "no theory" either - not if that person must choose between actions.

[Vigile]

If you have your own theories then you ought to explain them and defend them when you are debating - just like everybody else. You shouldn't just sit back and snipe at other people who stick their necks out to present their theories.

 

See, this is what I thought.  You're trying to even the playing field for those who believe crazy shit. 

 

We can dismiss bigfoot, biblegod, and Steven King creations out of hand.  There is exactly zero reason to believe or even consider these things in the realm of reality.  If zero reason, probability doesn't even enter the room.  I don't need to offer alternative hypotheses to crazy, made up shit.  That's just silly. 

 

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

Just to clarify my position as an apatheist:  I couldn't care less if a god or gods existed or not.  You may still accuse me of having an opinion, but unless you can demonstrate that indifference is a belief system, then you're simply wrong (and I forgive you).

I would say that apatheism demonstrates a very low confidence in any of the jealous God, heaven and hell types of religion. You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you.

 

So apatheism does imply a low opinion of Christianity, Islam, and any other "my way or the highway"-type religion.

 

Also apatheism implies a high confidence in metaphysical naturalism. How could the question of deities be uninteresting to you unless you believe metaphysical naturalism is true almost all the time?

 

"You really can't be apathetic if Christianity or Islam are plausible possibilities to you."

 

Why not? Prof can simply not care about Xtianity or Islam. Not caring is an option.

 

I would say that the possibility of eternal torment versus eternal happiness is so great that a sensible person couldn't be apathetic. Even if there are multiple heaven and hell Gods to choose from (Christianity and Islam), it would still be better to choose one of them and hope you get lucky instead of choosing nothing. Choosing nothing will certainly land you in hell if any of those religions are true.

 

So if a person is apathetic about religion it can only mean that person doesn't have any confidence in the heaven and hell religions IMO. (Of course some denominations of Christianity are universalists and an apatheist might believe in them as possibilities.)

 

Patently untrue.  I could also care less if there's a heaven or a hell.  This leaves me in the distinct position of not having to force a choice in hopes of being right.

 

I would argue that it is impossible to not care about the possibility of heaven vs hell. The only rational explanation for your behavior is that you assign an extremely low probability to the possibility that heaven and hell exist, and you assign a very large but non-infinite utility to reaching heaven instead of hell (that way you can multiply the two values and get a negligible expected utility for trying to escape hell).

 

Of course Orbit suggested that you might not be a sensible decision maker. Or maybe you completely devalue the future. For example if you are in the middle of a light sable duel with Darth Vader then you might be too busy to think about anything else.

 

So atheism is more than simply a lack of belief in theism. Atheists are confronted with religious theories and have alternative theories that they think are better for making decisions. Usually the alternative theory is metaphysical naturalism. Atheism is more than simply a lack of belief in all forms of theism.

 

You are showing naive realism (when you assume your view must be everyone's view) in the bolded statement above. I too don't care about heaven and hell--the terms carry no more emotional weight than Valhalla or pink unicorns. I just wasn't as heavily indoctrinated as you, so I think differently. Hell only bothers you if you think there is a possibility that it's real. I don't. Same with Heaven--just another fairy tale. You are trying to make ideas that you think are true into universal definitions which are not true for others and hence invalid. They don't universally apply.

 

Your use of probability here is nothing more than assigning numbers to your own biases. Both heaven and hell have a probability of zero to me.

[mymistake]

 

Maybe I'm weird but there are lots of far-out theories rattling around in my head even though I assign them low probabilities - not every theory I have ever heard, but quite a few. I don't totally dismiss the possibility that Bigfoots are a species of furry space alien that enjoy vacationing on Earth.

 

In general though, it isn't possible to have no theory about the consequences of various actions when you must choose an action. You can't simply disbelieve in the theories that someone else presents, you must have your own theories. If you have your own theories then you ought to explain them and defend them when you are debating - just like everybody else. You shouldn't just sit back and snipe at other people who stick their necks out to present their theories. Nobody can claim to have "the default theory" that doesn't need to be defended. Nobody can claim to have "no theory" either - not if that person must choose between actions.

 

 

 

You should use occam's razor.  It is a very powerful tool for cutting through nonsense.  Yes, there is a default that doesn't need to be defended.  This is how logic works.  I think you are projecting your own struggles on to the general population.

 

We see people have bad beliefs all the time.  Take traffic.  Yesterday I saw the car of a guy who thought "It will be safe for me to turn left now".  Boy, was he wrong.  We don't need to assign probabilities to his belief.  People entertain wrong beliefs all the time.  They usually don't think it through.  Often they don't even realize they didn't think it through.

[directionless]

 

If you have your own theories then you ought to explain them and defend them when you are debating - just like everybody else. You shouldn't just sit back and snipe at other people who stick their necks out to present their theories.

 

See, this is what I thought.  You're trying to even the playing field for those who believe crazy shit. 

 

We can dismiss bigfoot, biblegod, and Steven King creations out of hand.  There is exactly zero reason to believe or even consider these things in the realm of reality.  If zero reason, probability doesn't even enter the room.  I don't need to offer alternative hypotheses to crazy, made up shit.  That's just silly.

 

What is the difference between the crazy idea and the non-crazy idea? I would say the only objective difference is that one idea conforms to conventional wisdom and the other does not. Of course conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong.

 

If you define atheism as metaphysical naturalism then I would agree that it is very close to conventional wisdom, because science assumes that naturalism is mostly correct so that experiments can be designed without worrying about supernatural interference (i.e. methodological naturalism). And science is so important in our modern society. We rely on so much technology that science produced.

 

But it isn't fair to simply say that atheism is "lack of belief in theism" therefore it is the default therefore atheists can simply sit back and snipe at theists.

 

I prefer defining atheism as an actual model of reality and presenting the evidence for that model.

 

Maybe I'm sensitive to this issue, because I have seen the same thing on the UFO question. In one case a UFO was sighted outside a building where astronomers were meeting. The astronomers refused to even walk outside to take a look. That shows how ridiculous people can be IMO.

[Orbit]

 

 

If you have your own theories then you ought to explain them and defend them when you are debating - just like everybody else. You shouldn't just sit back and snipe at other people who stick their necks out to present their theories.

 

See, this is what I thought.  You're trying to even the playing field for those who believe crazy shit. 

 

We can dismiss bigfoot, biblegod, and Steven King creations out of hand.  There is exactly zero reason to believe or even consider these things in the realm of reality.  If zero reason, probability doesn't even enter the room.  I don't need to offer alternative hypotheses to crazy, made up shit.  That's just silly.

 

What is the difference between the crazy idea and the non-crazy idea? I would say the only objective difference is that one idea conforms to conventional wisdom and the other does not. Of course conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong.

 

If you define atheism as metaphysical naturalism then I would agree that it is very close to conventional wisdom, because science assumes that naturalism is mostly correct so that experiments can be designed without worrying about supernatural interference (i.e. methodological naturalism). And science is so important in our modern society. We rely on so much technology that science produced.

 

But it isn't fair to simply say that atheism is "lack of belief in theism" therefore it is the default therefore atheists can simply sit back and snipe at theists.

 

I prefer defining atheism as an actual model of reality and presenting the evidence for that model.

 

Maybe I'm sensitive to this issue, because I have seen the same thing on the UFO question. In one case a UFO was sighted outside a building where astronomers were meeting. The astronomers refused to even walk outside to take a look. That shows how ridiculous people can be IMO.

 

"What is the difference between the crazy idea and the non-crazy idea?" 

The non-crazy idea can be tested by science.

[Vigile]

What is the difference between the crazy idea and the non-crazy idea? I would say the only objective difference is that one idea conforms to conventional wisdom and the other does not. Of course conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong.

 

No, the difference is evidence.

 

You like to discuss probabilities, so let's run with that.  Made up shit has such improbable odds of being true, I doubt the human mind is capable of appreciating just how thin the odds are. 

 

If you define atheism as metaphysical naturalism

 

 

Why would you want to define an 'a-' position as anything other than it's relationship to the thing it doesn't accept? 

 

Maybe I'm sensitive to this issue, because I have seen the same thing on the UFO question. In one case a UFO was sighted outside a building where astronomers were meeting. The astronomers refused to even walk outside to take a look. That shows how ridiculous people can be IMO

 

What's ridiculous about it?  Should a think tank full of scientists look out the window if the janitor tells them there's an elf walking down the street? 

[directionless]

 

Maybe I'm weird but there are lots of far-out theories rattling around in my head even though I assign them low probabilities - not every theory I have ever heard, but quite a few. I don't totally dismiss the possibility that Bigfoots are a species of furry space alien that enjoy vacationing on Earth.

 

In general though, it isn't possible to have no theory about the consequences of various actions when you must choose an action. You can't simply disbelieve in the theories that someone else presents, you must have your own theories. If you have your own theories then you ought to explain them and defend them when you are debating - just like everybody else. You shouldn't just sit back and snipe at other people who stick their necks out to present their theories. Nobody can claim to have "the default theory" that doesn't need to be defended. Nobody can claim to have "no theory" either - not if that person must choose between actions.

 

 

You should use occam's razor.  It is a very powerful tool for cutting through nonsense.  Yes, there is a default that doesn't need to be defended.  This is how logic works.  I think you are projecting your own struggles on to the general population.

 

We see people have bad beliefs all the time.  Take traffic.  Yesterday I saw the car of a guy who thought "It will be safe for me to turn left now".  Boy, was he wrong.  We don't need to assign probabilities to his belief.  People entertain wrong beliefs all the time.  They usually don't think it through.  Often they don't even realize they didn't think it through.

 

It's true that having seen a daylight disc UFO, and other strange things, I'm less comfortable dismissing those types of things.

 

I have always felt that Occam's razor is just a fuzzy heuristic that is hard to define and justify precisely. However, I noticed an article on wikipedia "Solomon's theory of inductive inference" that attempts to justify Occam's razor. I haven't read the article and it is beyond my ability to understand, but it looks interesting. I read a book about philosophy of science where the author concluded that Popper's falsifiability is bunk and in fact science relies on induction. So this mathematical theory would also justify science's use of induction.

Solomonoff's theory of universal inductive inference is a theory of prediction based on logical observations, such as predicting the next symbol based upon a given series of symbols. The only assumption that the theory makes is that the environment follows some unknown but computable probability distribution. It is a mathematical formalization of Occam's razor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference

[directionless]

 

What is the difference between the crazy idea and the non-crazy idea? I would say the only objective difference is that one idea conforms to conventional wisdom and the other does not. Of course conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong.

 

No, the difference is evidence.

 

You like to discuss probabilities, so let's run with that.  Made up shit has such improbable odds of being true, I doubt the human mind is capable of appreciating just how thin the odds are. 

 

If you define atheism as metaphysical naturalism

 

Why would you want to define an 'a-' position as anything other than it's relationship to the thing it doesn't accept? 

 

Maybe I'm sensitive to this issue, because I have seen the same thing on the UFO question. In one case a UFO was sighted outside a building where astronomers were meeting. The astronomers refused to even walk outside to take a look. That shows how ridiculous people can be IMO

 

What's ridiculous about it?  Should a think tank full of scientists look out the window if the janitor tells them there's an elf walking down the street?

 

I suspect that a group of scientists is less likely to investigate the elf sighting than an individual scientist. Success in science depends on respect from peers. Many scientists who investigate UFOs are very careful to keep their interest confidential.

 

If it was me I would check out the elf.

[Orbit]

 

 

Maybe I'm weird but there are lots of far-out theories rattling around in my head even though I assign them low probabilities - not every theory I have ever heard, but quite a few. I don't totally dismiss the possibility that Bigfoots are a species of furry space alien that enjoy vacationing on Earth.

 

In general though, it isn't possible to have no theory about the consequences of various actions when you must choose an action. You can't simply disbelieve in the theories that someone else presents, you must have your own theories. If you have your own theories then you ought to explain them and defend them when you are debating - just like everybody else. You shouldn't just sit back and snipe at other people who stick their necks out to present their theories. Nobody can claim to have "the default theory" that doesn't need to be defended. Nobody can claim to have "no theory" either - not if that person must choose between actions.

 

 

You should use occam's razor.  It is a very powerful tool for cutting through nonsense.  Yes, there is a default that doesn't need to be defended.  This is how logic works.  I think you are projecting your own struggles on to the general population.

 

We see people have bad beliefs all the time.  Take traffic.  Yesterday I saw the car of a guy who thought "It will be safe for me to turn left now".  Boy, was he wrong.  We don't need to assign probabilities to his belief.  People entertain wrong beliefs all the time.  They usually don't think it through.  Often they don't even realize they didn't think it through.

 

It's true that having seen a daylight disc UFO, and other strange things, I'm less comfortable dismissing those types of things.

 

I have always felt that Occam's razor is just a fuzzy heuristic that is hard to define and justify precisely. However, I noticed an article on wikipedia "Solomon's theory of inductive inference" that attempts to justify Occam's razor. I haven't read the article and it is beyond my ability to understand, but it looks interesting. I read a book about philosophy of science where the author concluded that Popper's falsifiability is bunk and in fact science relies on induction. So this mathematical theory would also justify science's use of induction.

Solomonoff's theory of universal inductive inference is a theory of prediction based on logical observations, such as predicting the next symbol based upon a given series of symbols. The only assumption that the theory makes is that the environment follows some unknown but computable probability distribution. It is a mathematical formalization of Occam's razor.

 

In science, "induction" refers to constructing theory FROM patterns in the data. It is still science. It doesn't mean "falsifiability is bunk" it means that falsifiability is not always the goal of science. It's called the construction of grounded theory, and it still requires observable data, it's just that the direction of the logic is opposite to deduction, which starts from theory and tests it using data. There is nothing fuzzy about Occam, which says "the simplest explanation is probably the best explanation", where simple refers to laws, calculations, and variables needed in the problem.

 

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but you don't have the understanding of science/probability to evaluate these different methods. Sometimes a little knowledge from Wikipedia just leads to confusion. Probabilities come from observed data and nowhere else. Otherwise they are useless. Induction and deduction are both justified in science, but are used to approach different kinds of problems.

[mymistake]

 

 

If you have your own theories then you ought to explain them and defend them when you are debating - just like everybody else. You shouldn't just sit back and snipe at other people who stick their necks out to present their theories.

 

See, this is what I thought.  You're trying to even the playing field for those who believe crazy shit. 

 

We can dismiss bigfoot, biblegod, and Steven King creations out of hand.  There is exactly zero reason to believe or even consider these things in the realm of reality.  If zero reason, probability doesn't even enter the room.  I don't need to offer alternative hypotheses to crazy, made up shit.  That's just silly.

 

What is the difference between the crazy idea and the non-crazy idea? I would say the only objective difference is that one idea conforms to conventional wisdom and the other does not. Of course conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong.

 

If you define atheism as metaphysical naturalism then I would agree that it is very close to conventional wisdom, because science assumes that naturalism is mostly correct so that experiments can be designed without worrying about supernatural interference (i.e. methodological naturalism). And science is so important in our modern society. We rely on so much technology that science produced.

 

But it isn't fair to simply say that atheism is "lack of belief in theism" therefore it is the default therefore atheists can simply sit back and snipe at theists.

 

I prefer defining atheism as an actual model of reality and presenting the evidence for that model.

 

Maybe I'm sensitive to this issue, because I have seen the same thing on the UFO question. In one case a UFO was sighted outside a building where astronomers were meeting. The astronomers refused to even walk outside to take a look. That shows how ridiculous people can be IMO.

 

 

No, it is not about conventional wisdom.  A crazy idea ignores logic and facts.  A rational idea follows facts and valid logic to their conclusion.  Conventional wisdom is just whatever idea happens to be popular.

 

I don't even know what metaphysical naturalism would be.  Science only assumes that our universe is not playing tricks on us.  Our reliance on technology demonstrates that science is reliable.

 

 

"But it isn't fair to simply say that atheism is "lack of belief in theism" therefore it is the default therefore atheists can simply sit back and snipe at theists."

 

Awe too bad for the theists.  It wasn't fair when theists were torturing atheists in dungeons and burning them to death at the stake.  Now that the power has turned theists have to endure our questions.  

 

Logically what you can detect is the default and the burden is on crazy people to prove their delusions are true.

 

 

 

"I prefer defining atheism as an actual model of reality and presenting the evidence for that model."

 

You are welcome to be wrong if you choose.  As a hard atheist it is materialism that is my model for reality, not my atheism.

 

 

 

"Maybe I'm sensitive to this issue, because I have seen the same thing on the UFO question. In one case a UFO was sighted outside a building where astronomers were meeting. The astronomers refused to even walk outside to take a look. That shows how ridiculous people can be IMO."

 

Yes it was silly of the crazy person to demand the busy astronomer go on a wild goose chase.  The existence of little green men from outer space was not demonstrated on that night.  Here is the thing about optics.  Seeing something is easy.  Identifying it is very hard.  That is why amateurs see so many UFOs.  They have no idea what they are looking at so it is unidentified.  There is nothing special about this.  When some people see something and they don't know what it is their imagination runs wild.  But those who have the skill to identify it usually are not excited by the results.