YEC Atheists

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

Except there is thing called “proper basic belief”…

How does that apply here, and how is it justified?

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

It seems first and second generation immigrants like @dga471 and I do this naturally. We have an advantage here.

If you have an advantage, then you can help me out by translating. What did @rspeir mean by all that? I presume he wasn’t serious about the claim to be trolling. But what did all that mean? Was he claiming that we can’t see evidence of God because God hides? If so, I have further questions. If not, what?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T_aquaticus

Except there is thing called “proper basic belief”…

How does that apply here, and how is it justified?

If proper basic beliefs exist that cannot be justified with evidence (and they do), then this becomes an absurd epistemology:

@T_aquaticus

It isn’t up to skeptics to disprove a claim. It is up to the claimant to evidence the claim.

@T_aquaticus

The situation I am referringto is where one demands repeatable observations for one conclusion (science) but not for another (theology). At least in my view, there is a difference in the requirements for belief in science and in theology.

It means that skepticism/empericism applied consistently would lead to nihilism. Skepticism of this sort effectively dismantles nearly every important claim. You are putting forward an epistemology that epistemologists abandoned decades ago.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@T_aquaticus

The situation I am referringto is where one demands repeatable observations for one conclusion (science) but not for another (theology). At least in my view, there is a difference in the requirements for belief in science and in theology.

I have not studied this closely, but it is my general perception that atheists, especially those with a scientific background, have trouble accepting these dual requirements for belief in scientifically-minded theists. Would you tend to agree, or disagree?

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion

Bertrand Russell was far dumber than we give him credit for – or, he was bluffing. I believe the latter. See, Russell cunningly and deliberately fabricated the china teapot in his argument as a mental construct only. A fantasy. If it existed at all, it was an unseen, untraceable, and unprovable by-product or member of an otherwise enormous system that surrounded it and predated it. Our burden to prove or disprove the existence of his phony teapot is therefore trite and of no consequence.

However, on the other hand, Russell knew that if there was even the remote possibility that his china teapot exhibited God-like characters and had not only predated but also created the very universe in which it was hiding, the burden then shifted to him to disprove its existence.

What he gave us to try and prove was inconsequential to his argument. What he forced himself to dis-prove was damning.

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass, care to translate this perfectly rational argument for those of us who can only manage to see it as incoherent?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@r_speir

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion

Bertrand Russell was far dumber than we give him credit for – or, he was bluffing. I believe the latter.

I think Russel was bluffing too.

@r_speir

However, on the other hand, Russell knew that if there was even the remote possibility that his china teapot exhibited God-like characters and had not only predated but also created the very universe in which it was hiding, the burden then shifted to him to disprove its existence.

I don’t agree with this part.

@r_speir

See, Russell cunningly and deliberately fabricated the china teapot in his argument as a mental construct only. A fantasy. If it existed at all, it was an unseen, untraceable, and unprovable by-product or member of an otherwise enormous system that surrounded it and predated it. Our burden to prove or disprove the existence of his phony teapot is therefore trite and of no consequence.

That is right. His teapot analogy is an obviously invalid analogy. I think this has been fairly well known for a while. Russel was putting forward a type of positivism that just ended up being incoherent. What ended it? God and Other Minds, by Plantinga. No serious philosopher is a positivist any more. Though, many YEC Atheists think they are!

This article gives the story correctly: http://www.veritas.org/positivism-burden-proof/

@structureoftruth?

@John_Harshman

@swamidass, care to translate this perfectly rational argument for those of us who can only manage to see it as incoherent?

Hope that helps!

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

If proper basic beliefs exist that cannot be justified with evidence (and they do), then this becomes an absurd epistemology

That’s a big “if” at the beginning of the proposition.

@swamidass

It means that skepticism/empericism applied consistently would lead to nihilism. Skepticism of this sort effectively dismantles nearly every important claim. You are putting forward an epistemology that epistemologists abandoned decades ago.

How does skepticism/empiricism lead to nihilism?

Also, there are plenty of modern skeptics and positivists. I think most scientists would be stunned to hear empiricism has been abandoned.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T_aquaticus

If proper basic beliefs exist that cannot be justified with evidence (and they do), then this becomes an absurd epistemology

That’s a big “if” at the beginning of the proposition.

Not really. The key example is: Other Minds. See the link I posted.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

However, on the other hand, Russell knew that if there was even the remote possibility that his china teapot exhibited God-like characters and had not only predated but also created the very universe in which it was hiding, the burden then shifted to him to disprove its existence.

The same argument would apply to a tea pot that someone believed predated and also created the universe. The same logic applies to all claims regardless of their import.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

That is right. His teapot analogy is an obviously invalid analogy. I think this has been fairly well known for a while. Russel was putting forward a type of positivism that just ended up being incoherent. What ended it? God and Other Minds, by Plantinga. No serious philosopher is a positivist any more. Though, many YEC Atheists think they are!

This article gives the story correctly: Positivism and the Burden of Proof - The Veritas Forum - The Veritas Forum

Since we are replacing discussion with dismissal, then we can safely ignore Platinga since no serious philosopher accepts his ideas any more.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T_aquaticus

Since we are replacing discussion with dismissal, then we can safely ignore Platinga since no serious philosopher accepts his ideas any more.

His recent work has been less accepted. I’m nor aware of anyone who still disputes God and Other Minds. That is the book that puthim in the map.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T_aquaticus

How does skepticism/empiricism lead to nihilism?

There is no way to emperically demonstrate other minds to a dedicated skeptic. Without other minds, ethics, logic, and quite a bit just collapses.

[structureoftruth (Matthew Dickau)]

I’m not completely familiar with the literature, but Plantinga was far from alone in dismantling the philosophy of positivism. IIRC, Quine was another major influence against it, with his paper “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”.

And yeah, as far as I can tell, properly basic beliefs are required for any consistent epistemology: science needs them too. The rules of deductive and inductive inference, for example, are not determined empirically. Neither is the belief that there is an external physical world.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

There is no way to emperically demonstrate other minds to a dedicated skeptic.

Sure there is. We can observe other people behaving consistently with what we would expect to see from a person with a mind. That is what convinces this skeptic that other minds exist.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@r_speir

They do not realize that they cannot just ‘disbelieve in God’ and the matter is settled. They must utterly eliminate his very possibility.

This seems to be a typical theist’s misunderstanding of atheism.

@r_speir

Since atheists must eliminate every possible trace of God, and since they will never be able to accomplish it, their argument is already defeated before it starts.

If they already don’t see any trace of God, there is nothing for them to eliminate.

@r_speir

Here is one of the most powerful statements about God’s existence and the statement that atheists will never rise above - “Truly you are a God who hides himself”.

If God makes his existence invisible, then there is already no reason for the atheist to believe that he exists. From the atheist’s perspective, there’s no important difference between “God does not exist” and “the world is the way that we would expect it to be if there is no God.”

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@swamidass

If proper basic beliefs exist that cannot be justified with evidence (and they do), then this becomes an absurd epistemology:

Epistemology is absurd anyway.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@r_speir

Our burden to prove or disprove the existence of his phony teapot is therefore trite and of no consequence.

Fair enough. However, from the point of view of the atheist, the same can be said of their alleged burden to disprove the existence of gods.

[r_speir]

@nwrickert

If they already don’t see any trace of God, there is nothing for them to eliminate.

False. You must eliminate the possibility that he is hiding from you.

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

Hope that helps!

Slightly. You at least allude to an argument and it’s possible that you even link to one. I would prefer if you would actually make the argument, but I’ll take what I can get.