Evaluating Evidence for Topics Outside Your Area of Expertise

[Hierophant]

Happy New Year Everyone.

 

The other day I was on a Facebook page and I made a post about why I am skeptical of the God hypothesis as an answer for things humans do not know (@Wertbag hit on this with his recent series [which I really enjoy]). I figured out fairly quickly the following page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/284039292235647 is ran and moderated by Christians. I came out the gate poking a hole in some guy's post and he threw a fit and asked for the admins. Anyways, there was user who stated that one, per Inspired Philosophy, the God of the Gaps argument is overused (it isn't, but they want it to be). And then he went into a series of comments telling me to prove my claims...I kind of lost the bubble on what he was even stating I was not sufficiently providing evidence for, then later he said that I had claimed the work had not been done on establishing the existence of a God. He then provided a link to his theological blog where his big-ticket items were prophecy and the fine-tuning argument that he had more or less regurgitated from Dr. Robin Collins' paper.

 

Apparently Tom is trained in textual criticism and knows more than the average couch potato. Some things I noticed off the bat are his disagreement with Marcan priority, which he basis off of church father statements and some analysis I didn't really read in depth. He also has a section stating Yahweh was not a Canaanite God, though other scholars disagree and have their own set of reasoning for believing so.

 

My question to the group is this, the dilemma I find myself, and this is probably true for most people, when you have scholars in a field, who do not agree, how are we to evaluate the weight of their arguments. Granted, Tom is a believer and no matter what, I think he is going to reach a certain conclusion. If we were to snap back at him saying he is bias, he would probably retort that atheist scholars are bias and don't want God to be true or something along those lines; and he could be correct. I don't know these people personally, so I cannot really say. That being said, I find it hard to believe we have whole fields of people who are simply lying, but that is my opinion and not established fact.

 

Tom also goes on about how Daniel was not written late because of his use of ancient Hebrew, but I have listened to Dr. Joshua Bowen say the exact opposite. As layman, how can we know? To me this would go into a larger issue of we don't have a million lifetimes to live to become specialists in every single relevant field such as philosophy, linguistics, history, cosmology, etc. to then know all the relevant evidence, how to weigh it, and what the majority of the evidence points to.

 

In theory, could the Christians be right and we just suck at evaluating evidence?

[◊ Krowb ◊]

Replace "Christians" with literally any religious group and I think the answer quickly becomes apparent.

[Hierophant]

6 minutes ago, Krowb said:

Replace "Christians" with literally any religious group and I think the answer quickly becomes apparent.

 

Lol....fair point

[◊ Krowb ◊]

I think it's also important for anyone to no conflate things that appear similar on the surface, but are pretty distinct.  All religions make two sets of claims (1) historical and (2) future.

 

Based on their claimed historical data, they make predictions of future states (afterlife).  This is where I believe the conflation exists.  The fact you can show a high degree of probability regarding a historical event does not, in and of itself, imply or suggest a future state, there must be shown a causal or correlation between the two.

 

The Hindu says their historical records are true; therefore, the future state of reincarnation is true.

Most Christians say their historical records are true; therefore, the future state of heaven/hell is true.

. . . and so forth.

 

It simply does not follow.

 

Some historical records say if I drop a bowling bowl and a feather in a vacuum they will fall at the same rate.  This is testable.  Future states after death are not yet testable, so I see little reason in making the claims.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

If someone wants to argue the actual existence of Caesar Augustus or Alexander the Great . . . who cares?  It's the future claims portion that animates most religious people, but they are all ultimately peddling the same good:  "faith"

[Hierophant]

2 minutes ago, Krowb said:

I think it's also important for anyone to no conflate things that appear similar on the surface, but are pretty distinct.  All religions make two sets of claims (1) historical and (2) future.

 

Based on their claimed historical data, they make predictions of future states (afterlife).  This is where I believe the conflation exists.  The fact you can show a high degree of probability regarding a historical event does not, in and of itself, imply or suggest a future state, there must be shown a causal or correlation between the two.

 

The Hindu says their historical records are true; therefore, the future state of reincarnation is true.

Most Christians say their historical records are true; therefore, the future state of heaven/hell is true.

. . . and so forth.

 

It simply does not follow.

 

Some historical records say if I drop a bowling bowl and a feather in a vacuum they will fall at the same rate.  This is testable.  Future states after death are not yet testable, so I see little reason in making the claims.

 

That clocks, and I am tracking. I think our friend Tom is stating that prophecy coming true -> implies the Bible is special because it predicted future events -> those events came to pass -> therefore it must be divinely inspired -> therefore God.

 

Beyond that, Tom is claiming that say the book of Daniel is older while Joshua Bowen or Kipp Davis say it's later. Now, each one is going to use some terms and methods outside of my realm of expertise. Same would go for philosophical arguments. If you go on Infidels[.]org, there are concepts and terminology that are way outside of my domain of knowledge. The question is, as layman, what method could we employ to sort through it and come to some type of conclusion without having to go get our PhD in archeology and linguistics and philosophy and all that jazz?

 

We could say, hey the majority of scholars think this, but isn't that Argumentum ad populum, which is not inherently invalid, but just because the majority thinks something, it doesn't necessarily make it true. What if our friend Tom is right, and the skeptic scholars just bumbled some stuff up....seems unlikely, but that's kind of where I am stuck thinking about this.

[Hierophant]

5 minutes ago, Krowb said:

If someone wants to argue the actual existence of Caesar Augustus or Alexander the Great . . . who cares?  It's the future claims portion that animates most religious people, but they are all ultimately peddling the same good:  "faith"

 

I have no doubt he is taking a leap of faith, I'm just having trouble "proving" it.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

18 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

That clocks, and I am tracking. I think our friend Tom is stating that prophecy coming true -> implies the Bible is special because it predicted future events -> those events came to pass -> therefore it must be divinely inspired -> therefore God.

 

This is the source of the leap.  We don't need to have expertise to know this is the part that does not follow.  An old book said "X would occur" and then another old passage said "X did occur".

 

Keeping with the Alexander the Great example, ancient sources have the Oracle at Delphi making prophecies.  Other ancient sources say those prophecies came true.  Are we to accept the above as "therefore the Oracle of Apollo is inspired by Apollo, Apollo must be a real God"?

 

It's all historical.  Even if those particular prophecies came true, what of it today?  History is replete with prophecies coming true.  Welcome to the club.  Now show me where there is a recent prophecy coming true and that prophets track record, and what they say of other future states?  Shouldn't we give modern prophets, showing their divinity more weight than long dead prophets who missed the mark on modernity?

 

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/uk/modern-day-nostradamus-who-predicted-covid-19-queens-death-now-warns-of-imminent-and-nuclear-world-war-iii/articleshow/94606193.cms?from=mdr

 

https://nypost.com/2023/06/06/blind-mystic-baba-vanga-makes-nuclear-disaster-prediction-for-2023/

 

What do/did those prophets believe?  Their followers claim their prophecies come true, perhaps it is their gods who exist.

 

There is so much noise in the system, that it's hard to take "prophecy" seriously.  Could we be wrong, absolutely, but it seems far more likely old Tom is deluding himself.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

We don't need to be experts in their fields to know when they're making unsupported leaps.  If their method doesn't hold if we switch books/gods, then the method itself is flawed.  And he'll be forced to switch gears, and he will continue switching gears until it boils down to either a cumulative argument or "faith".

[Hierophant]

You made some great points, thank you.

 

I posed the same question to our beloved friend: "Question for you, I read through the paper by Collins, and I also read some responses from people who thought the argument was flawed, for various reasons. On both sides were ideas and principles for which I was unfamiliar, and in the spirit of this idea, what method do you think layman could employ to determine who we think is more correct? It didn't seem we can be certain one is more accurate than the other, and each could be sufficient reason for doubt on both sides. Should it be what we find more convincing based on our education, experience, etc.? What say you?"

 

Here was his response - I think the cat came out of the bag on this one:

"it’s true we each have our own biases. But when considering evidence we should consider inference to the best explanation. The example of sticks spelling “enjoy the hike” the best explanation is someone wrote it using sticks. The best evidence we have and the consensus of those scientists who study various aspects of cosmology is the our universe is designed for existence. We should not allow our biases for or against God’s existence persuade the evidence. Once we have the information we can either accept or reject that information. If we accept that information we then have to ask what is the best explanation (inference to the best explanation). Fine tuning permits two possibilities: a multiverse or a Designer. A multiverse does not eliminate a Designer (it only moves it down the road). Nor do we have physical evidence for a multiverse - it would be a statement of faith against the odds. So what is the best influence to the best explanation?

To this the theist can add additional arguments - each pointing to a Designer. And the non-theist must deny each argument and produce evidence to the contrary and in support of their position. I find non-theist usually willing to argue against evidence presented, but seldom willing to present evidence supporting their position (emphasis mine - I don't agree with this. We can see holes in a claim and might have no idea of an alternative).

That said, while I find the evidence compelling I do not believe based solely on evidence outside of my personal experience (which courts as evidence). God is not an abstract Being to me that can only be known by empirical or philosophical arguments. He is known to me (as much as a limited being can know an infinite being) by me relationship with Him because of Christ. Much like my children when young did not know all that is me, but loved me and I them. Later when they were older and had children of their own they came to know me better.

Anyway, that is not at all to say there is a lack of evidence - just a lack of understanding. I believe Christianity is both faith based and evidence based (emphasis mine).

I hope this is of some help."

[◊ Krowb ◊]

3 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

The best evidence we have and the consensus of those scientists who study various aspects of cosmology is the our universe is designed for existence.

 

Framing is a powerful tool.  This framing is his initial unsupported leap and it is the same framing employed since time immemorial.

 

Let me rewrite a bit of his argument for say . . . . 2,000 years ago and it will become clear:

 

The best evidence we have and the consensus of those scientists who study various aspects of cosmology nature is our world is designed for Thunder & Lightning. We should not allow our biases for or against God’s existence persuade the evidence. Once we have the information we can either accept or reject that information. If we accept that information we then have to ask what is the best explanation (inference to the best explanation). Thunder, & lightning permits two possibilities: a natural cause or a Designer. A natural cause does not eliminate a Designer (it only moves it down the road). Nor do we have physical evidence for a natural cause - it would be a statement of faith against the odds.

 

This is a modern day and gussied up "God of the Gaps" argument, nothing more.

 

Let's frame his initial leap another way:

 

The best evidence we have and the consensus of those scientists who study various aspects of cosmology is that our universe contains existence.  Now, this is a truism as we have a single data point, which contains existence.  Unfortunately, we should not draw conclusions based on this single point, as we humans have a habit of extrapolating from insufficient data and have been overwhelming wrong in the long course of human existence.  Gods responsible for what we now know as natural and predictable phenomena, such as thunder and lightning, efficacy of blood-letting, etc . . .  Until we acquire further evidence, we should refrain from making unsupported judgments. The universe and our existence in it is a wonderful and miraculous occurence, and we should do our best to assist in humanity's task of better understanding the universe and our place within it.

[Hierophant]

Thanks Krowb, appreciate your insight!

[◊ Krowb ◊]

A problem with becoming an "expert" is the thing you are an "expert" in may not even be true.  You can get so deep in the weeds of your field that you completely missed the fact you stepped into the wrong meadow to begin with.  Phrenology comes to mind.

[Wertbag]

1 hour ago, Hierophant said:

But when considering evidence we should consider inference to the best explanation

And no explanation which involves a miracle will ever be the most likely answer.  A miracle by definition is a one-time unique event, while any natural explanation is within the bounds of physics and could be repeatable.  Any natural explanation, regardless of how unlikely, is by default more likely than magic.

 

1 hour ago, Hierophant said:

The best evidence we have and the consensus of those scientists who study various aspects of cosmology is the our universe is designed for existence

Unsupported assertion, you'd need to query all scientists to possibly know whether this was true.  To my understanding the majority of scientists who study cosmology would say certain aspects can have the appearance of design, but outside of the religious, people aren't coming to the conclusion that it was designed.

 

1 hour ago, Hierophant said:

If we accept that information we then have to ask what is the best explanation

Or we can say we have inadequate information to come to a conclusion, so we should hold off on jumping to an explanation with an incomplete data set.  The start of the universe is a big "We don't know", so to demand a jump to already having an answer is simply beyond what information we have.

 

1 hour ago, Hierophant said:

Fine tuning permits two possibilities: a multiverse or a Designer

False Dichotomy, forcing the answer to be one of two choices when other options exist.  Apologists will point to a multiverse when scientists do not.  It is not a widely believed idea, simply because we have no way to test it or know if it holds water.  The more likely answer is that the physical constants are set to the only possible thing they can be.  There is one answer, and that may come from matter being what it is.  If you have an atom, then all forces apply the same way due to the fundamental building blocks being one way.  It's not fine tuning when there is nothing to be tuned.  

Other options include God lit the fuse on the big bang and then let natural processes take over.  We are a brain in a vat and the world is a dream.  It was not "a" designer but a group or pantheon of Gods who designed together.  We all live in a computer simulation, or a God created the universe by accident rather than design.  You can say these competing ideas are incorrect for various reasons, but you can't ignore the existence of such ideas to demand only two options be considered at all.

 

2 hours ago, Hierophant said:

I find non-theist usually willing to argue against evidence presented, but seldom willing to present evidence supporting their position

Usually this is a shifting of the burden of proof, the theist is making the claim, and the atheist is saying "I don't believe you".  It is hard to prove a negative and hard to prove doubt.  No evidence is required to say, "I live my life like the world is a natural place until such a time as I'm shown it is otherwise".  

Of course, from a counter apologetic view there are hundreds of YouTube channels discussing religion, claims and philosophy.  There is no shortage of atheist channels putting forward arguments and debates, as well as hundreds of books, courses and seminars.  

 

2 hours ago, Hierophant said:

He is known to me by my relationship with Him

Personal relationships with invisible entities are both unfalsifiable and not unique to Christianity.  Muslims can feel the presence of Allah, Hindus feel the presence of Vishnu and every other religion makes the same claims about their unfalsifiable feelings.  If you are willing to say that the majority of people who have such feelings are incorrect, lead astray or are experiencing a natural effect from the brain, then why can none of those same reasons apply here?  If Muslims are wrong in their personal relationship with God, then why is the exact same thing worthy of your belief when it is you experiencing it?  Seems to be a double standard as to how much faith can be put in such subjective feelings of invisible presence.

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, Hierophant said:

Happy New Year Everyone.

 

The other day I was on a Facebook page and I made a post about why I am skeptical of the God hypothesis as an answer for things humans do not know (@Wertbag hit on this with his recent series [which I really enjoy]). I figured out fairly quickly the following page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/284039292235647 is ran and moderated by Christians. I came out the gate poking a hole in some guy's post and he threw a fit and asked for the admins. Anyways, there was user who stated that one, per Inspired Philosophy, the God of the Gaps argument is overused (it isn't, but they want it to be). And then he went into a series of comments telling me to prove my claims...I kind of lost the bubble on what he was even stating I was not sufficiently providing evidence for, then later he said that I had claimed the work had not been done on establishing the existence of a God. He then provided a link to his theological blog where his big-ticket items were prophecy and the fine-tuning argument that he had more or less regurgitated from Dr. Robin Collins' paper.

 

Apparently Tom is trained in textual criticism and knows more than the average couch potato. Some things I noticed off the bat are his disagreement with Marcan priority, which he basis off of church father statements and some analysis I didn't really read in depth. He also has a section stating Yahweh was not a Canaanite God, though other scholars disagree and have their own set of reasoning for believing so.

 

My question to the group is this, the dilemma I find myself, and this is probably true for most people, when you have scholars in a field, who do not agree, how are we to evaluate the weight of their arguments. Granted, Tom is a believer and no matter what, I think he is going to reach a certain conclusion. If we were to snap back at him saying he is bias, he would probably retort that atheist scholars are bias and don't want God to be true or something along those lines; and he could be correct. I don't know these people personally, so I cannot really say. That being said, I find it hard to believe we have whole fields of people who are simply lying, but that is my opinion and not established fact.

 

Tom also goes on about how Daniel was not written late because of his use of ancient Hebrew, but I have listened to Dr. Joshua Bowen say the exact opposite. As layman, how can we know? To me this would go into a larger issue of we don't have a million lifetimes to live to become specialists in every single relevant field such as philosophy, linguistics, history, cosmology, etc. to then know all the relevant evidence, how to weigh it, and what the majority of the evidence points to.

 

In theory, could the Christians be right and we just suck at evaluating evidence?

 

For me, Christianity and all world religions are no more logical than Greek Mythology. Since I know a great deal about science, I won't fall for any of the God-of-the-gaps arguments, the spiritual world etc. Don't rely on experts. If it's important to you, study it yourself. Remember, you can always change your mind, but choose what seems most logical to you as your belief. But my suggestion is not to argue in earnest unless you know a great deal about what you are discussing -- and then I think it's better just to inform others via links, of your belief.

[Hierophant]

10 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

For me, Christianity and all world religions are no more logical than Greek Mythology. Since I know a great deal about science, I won't fall for any of the God-of-the-gaps arguments, the spiritual world etc. Don't rely on experts. If it's important to you, study it yourself. Remember, you can always change your mind, but choose what seems most logical to you as your belief. But my suggestion is not to argue in earnest unless you know a great deal about what you are discussing -- and then I think it's better just to inform others via links, of your belief.

 

If I had the time, money, and resources, I would...but that would also take a few lifetimes to achieve.

[Hierophant]

19 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

For me, Christianity and all world religions are no more logical than Greek Mythology. Since I know a great deal about science, I won't fall for any of the God-of-the-gaps arguments, the spiritual world etc. Don't rely on experts. If it's important to you, study it yourself. Remember, you can always change your mind, but choose what seems most logical to you as your belief. But my suggestion is not to argue in earnest unless you know a great deal about what you are discussing -- and then I think it's better just to inform others via links, of your belief.

 

I wasn't arguing any specific point other than I thought the God of the Gaps argument was weak, and in one of the comments he essentially stated it had been done, i.e., fine turning, prophecy etc. I know the work hasn't been done, but I was finding it difficult to state exactly why. It's like trying to cram years of surveying the arguments, counter-aruments, etc., and trying to collectively insert why the evidence wasn't there - and anything I did say he simply said it was "my opinion."

[Hierophant]

@pantheory Could you expand upon what you mean by "don't trust the experts"? I'm want to make sure I understand what you are driving at.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 hours ago, Hierophant said:

We could say, hey the majority of scholars think this, but isn't that Argumentum ad populum

No.  It would be more of an argumentum ad verecundiam, argument from/appeal to authority.   Argumentum ad populum would be saying, "Millions of Chinese people believe in Buddhism; that many people can't be wrong."  If most scholars/experts agree, that doesn't necessarily form a popular appeal; because the number of experts is comparatively small vis a vis the total population. 

[Hierophant]

44 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  It would be more of an argumentum ad verecundiam, argument from/appeal to authority.   Argumentum ad populum would be saying, "Millions of Chinese people believe in Buddhism; that many people can't be wrong."  If most scholars/experts agree, that doesn't necessarily form a popular appeal; because the number of experts is comparatively small vis a vis the total population. 

 

That makes sense.

[Hierophant]

44 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  It would be more of an argumentum ad verecundiam, argument from/appeal to authority.   Argumentum ad populum would be saying, "Millions of Chinese people believe in Buddhism; that many people can't be wrong."  If most scholars/experts agree, that doesn't necessarily form a popular appeal; because the number of experts is comparatively small vis a vis the total population. 

 

Help me sort my thoughts out here, because unless I am misunderstanding what Pantheory is stating about trusting experts, it is quite literally impossible to become expert-level knowledgeable in a vast amount of fields. I work in digital forensics/cybersecurity, and that is a lifelong field of learning. There is simply too much to master everything. That being the case, and it ties back to my original posts, how much do we rely on experts? When it comes to higher criticism, it seems a lot of us rely on the works of Carrier, Price, Ehrman, etc., because we don't have the time and resources to learn a bunch of ancient languages, ancient southeast religion, and so on to get a good idea of what is probably the case. Then there is evolution, and cosmology, and a seemingly never ending list. Is there a method to flesh out who is completely wrong or omitting information?

[mwc]

5 hours ago, Hierophant said:

Tom also goes on about how Daniel was not written late because of his use of ancient Hebrew, but I have listened to Dr. Joshua Bowen say the exact opposite. As layman, how can we know? To me this would go into a larger issue of we don't have a million lifetimes to live to become specialists in every single relevant field such as philosophy, linguistics, history, cosmology, etc. to then know all the relevant evidence, how to weigh it, and what the majority of the evidence points to.

     What do you mean by "know" here?  If people actually knew, as in there was certainty, then you wouldn't see any debate on the issue.  It would be known for certain.

 

     However, there are a lot of clues that Daniel isn't as old as it claims (I'm going off the top of my head so there might be, and probably are, mistakes here so don't quote me).  Which is it reports to be written in the 6th century BCE.  It likely started being formulated around the 3rd or 4th century BCE.  This would be the first sections of the book.  Which explains its older Aramaic.  Later, in the 2nd century it gets added onto (around chapter 7) but it's now using a first person reporting style instead of what was used earlier.  It's also using a newer form of Hebrew than is found in earlier Hebrew documents.  Also, the book itself mentions events, in the older section, that are incorrect (mentioning people that didn't exist in history) which would be absolutely known to people alive at the time especially serving in the kings court.  So despite getting some history correct these mistakes are serious blows to any personal account.  Also, no other reports of this book come to light until about the 2nd century and the book tries to account for this with a sort of passage that says to hide the book until the time is right sort of language indicating the earlier work was either oral traditions, or sourced from "non-Daniel" material (meaning wherever they came from, whether one or more sources foreign or domestic, it was not known as "Daniel" to anyone) and the last author compiled everything under this new title.  The prophesies near the end of the war with Antiochus are simply wrong and basically go from specific to more and more vague.  Which seems to indicate the person knew what happened to Antiochus during the war but failed to "predict" his final fate and beyond (which, to be fair, was a bit of a curve-ball).

 

     Anyhow, this doesn't mean we "know" when the text was written but we also have a pretty good idea when it *wasn't* written.  The odds of someone in the 6th century accomplishing this would be highly unlikely and if miracles are involved it should be better than it is.  So it's more likely it's just more than one persons work with at least one major author/redactor around the 2nd century BCE.

 

 

5 hours ago, Hierophant said:

In theory, could the Christians be right and we just suck at evaluating evidence?

     Sure.  In theory.  In practice I don't think so.

 

          mwc

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Hierophant said:

@pantheory Could you expand upon what you mean by "don't trust the experts"? I'm want to make sure I understand what you are driving at.

 

 

There are experts in many academic fields of study. Even though they are experts, some experts can totally disagree with other experts as well as the mainstream opinion and point of view. Read for yourself different points of view, then form a logical opinion. Even so, it would be pointless to argue your opinion with others that have much more knowledge about the subject that you. Of course you can always state your opinion with a reference to a link.  If it doesn't make sense to you then reserve your opinion for something later that does make sense.

[Hierophant]

@mwc Sorry, by knowing I didn't mean it was completely one way. I understand that most thing are just tentative positions based on the majority of the evidence. Honestly, that eats me at the core.

[Hierophant]

2 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

There are experts in many academic fields of study. Even though they are experts, some experts can totally disagree with other experts as well as the mainstream opinion and point of view. Read for yourself different points of view, then form a logical opinion. Even so, it would be pointless to argue your opinion with others that have much more knowledge about the subject that you. Of course you can always state your opinion with a reference to a link.  If it doesn't make sense to you then reserve your opinion for something later that does make sense.

I see. Yeah, agreed.