Standard of Skepticism
Offline I wasn't really sure of what to call this topic, so I hope that the title I gave it ultimately satisfies what I'm trying to ask. Many atheists these days are also calling themselves "skeptics." They are skeptical of claims of the so called "supernatural."
Suppose we hear a story like this. I didn't make this up, I found this from a [url=http://www.byfaith.co.uk/paulmiracle.htm]website[/url].
[quote]"A few years ago, my wife and I had arranged to go for a restaurant meal with a lady friend. We left together, our friend leaving her car outside our house. It was a very cold winter's night, and a sharp frost was expected. We parked our car in a side street, and I realised I had forgotten the de- icer spray. So, I said a prayer, asking the Lord to protect our car from being iced up.
We spent about two hours in the restaurant, and when we came out it was bitterly cold. As we approached the street where we had parked the car, there were now several cars parked either side of ours, all totally covered in frost. I exclaimed "look at our car" - it was absolutely frost free! We rejoiced somewhat, glorying in the fact that God cares for even small details, like keeping our car frost free! We could imagine angels with hair dryers, blowing on our car. But that wasn’t all. When we arrived back to our street, our friend said excitedly, "look at my car"! All the parked cars were covered in frost, but her car was totally frost free! Minor miracles, but amazing all the same. What a wonderful God we serve!
Bob Jackson"[/quote]
What is your initial reaction to this? As skeptics, you obviously don't believe that it was God who protected the car from frost. So there are several other possible options.
So how do you interpret this story, as skeptics? Do you believe that Mr. Jackson was lying, or do you believe he is telling the truth? What sort of naturalistic explanation would you find satisfactory of this story? And lastly, what would it take to convince you that this story was actually God interacting in the world?
Thanks,
~P-Dunn
Well? Anyone?
I'd say we're not getting the full story. How long were the other cars parked there? Was it really frost free, and not wet? Or was it wet and just not frozen yet? Was the car on for a long time period before hand? If it was, and the other two cars weren't on for hours before they parked there, the one car might have had enough residual heat to keep the ice from forming.
There's just too many variables that we don't know for sure, and being that this person fully believes in a higher power able to do this, they will certainly see it as only that, and in turn will most likely embellish details to make it more apparent that their god has helped them. There are some likely physical evidences as to why the two cars did not gain any frost, but I don't believe we can explain it without having actually been there, or given full measurements on everything. I also don't believe that personal statements are good proofs for god's existence.
Now, what would convince me that the story was actually god interacting in the world? Honestly, nothing. But if you had maybe pictures of the car being spotless, dry, nothing on it, with a radius around the bottom being dry as well, while the other cars were plastered with ice, I might believe it, but also might not, it most likely being a forgery. I think I could only believe if I had seen it myself, and there was no doubt that it was a higher being that had done it. But again, that wouldn't have happened, sorry.
[quote]I'd say we're not getting the full story. How long were the other cars parked there?[/quote]
Well, logically, since it was outside of a restaurant, I'd assume that they were parked there around the same time.
[quote]Was it really frost free, and not wet? Or was it wet and just not frozen yet? Was the car on for a long time period before hand? If it was, and the other two cars weren't on for hours before they parked there, the one car might have had enough residual heat to keep the ice from forming.[/quote]
True, these questions are not answered.
[quote]I also don't believe that personal statements are good proofs for god's existence.[/quote]
Why not? Certainly you would concede that there are more credible stories circulating around than this. But if you don't believe "personal statements" are "good proofs," then you'd be regarding these as equal.
What's your reason for this?
[quote]I think I could only believe if I had seen it myself, and there was no doubt that it was a higher being that had done it.[/quote]
How could there be "no doubt" that it was a higher being if there was "honestly, nothing" that would convince you that a higher being had done it? Isn't that rather contradictory?
If there's [b]nothing[/b] that could convince you that it was a higher power, then would you still consider yourself to be a freethinker?
by nothing, he meant nothing in the form of the story. With such claims, or with any extraodrinary claims, like zombies or aliens or the like, it is important that all circumstances be documented in advance, and statistically evaluated. Seeing it onesself would be preferable. That was the point being made.
[quote]by nothing, he meant nothing in the form of the story. With such claims, or with any extraodrinary claims, like zombies or aliens or the like, it is important that all circumstances be documented in advance, and statistically evaluated. Seeing it onesself would be preferable. That was the point being made.[/quote]
But that's not what he said.
"Now, what would convince me that the story was actually god interacting in the world? Honestly, [b]nothing[/b]."
If you take that statement at face value, it means that there is nothing that would convince him that God actually got the frost off of the car or prevented the frost from appearing.
If he intended to mean something else, then he can come and verify it.
Now, what would convince me that the story was actually god interacting in the world? Honestly, nothing. But if you had maybe pictures of the car being spotless, dry, nothing on it, with a radius around the bottom being dry as well, while the other cars were plastered with ice, I might believe it, but also might not, it most likely being a forgery. I think I could only believe if I had seen it myself, and there was no doubt that it was a higher being that had done it. But again, that wouldn't have happened, sorry.
read it all. He says what could convince him the story was true? nothing. However, pictures(which are non-story elements, being visual), would convince him potentially, however, they are too suspect. However, in turn, seeing it himself(which is not a story as well, being experiential, might just convince him).
He is setting a standard for evidence that it must be experiential.
Of course, I would like to add other methods, such as experimental, taking all the circumstances and so forth.
Regardless, it hardly matters what he himself meant, the point is that anecdotal evidence provides little compelling reason to believe.
Even if he did mean that nothing would make him believe, that would add or detract nothing from the truth or nontruth of atheism, however, it would potentially detract from his ability to be called a freethinker.
THat being said, unless the conitions were all being monitered(and I'd prefer to either see it with my own eyes, and be verified by peer-reviews of professionals on the subject of...uh...frost?)
[quote]read it all. He says what could convince him the story was true? nothing. However, pictures(which are non-story elements, being visual), would convince him potentially, however, they are too suspect. However, in turn, seeing it himself(which is not a story as well, being experiential, might just convince him).[/quote]
Of course I read it all. I don't even think you see that you're contradicting yourself. If nothing will convince you that something's true, then [b]nothing will convince you that something's true.[/b]
Here's a basic lesson in the Law of Noncontradiction, AA.
Both of these cannot be true at the same time:
1) God exists.
2) God does not exist.
Both of these cannot be true at the same time:
1) Nothing will convince me that the story is true.
2) Pictures could convince me that the story is true.
It makes no difference if you say that pictures "potentially [i]could[/i]" convince you if right before it you say, "Nothing will convince me."
It also does no good for you to say, "Seeing it myself, providing there is [b]no doubt it was a higher being[/b], would convince me," as he said. This is something that is beyond ridiculous to even think of saying. The only reason he would want to see it for himself is if he wanted to be convinced. But if there was [b]no doubt[/b] that God did it, he would already be convinced, and therefore he would not need to be convinced. To top it all off, he follows it up with, "But again that wouldn't have happened, sorry," and therefore once again confirms his blatant fundy atheism.
[quote]He is setting a standard for evidence that it must be experiential.[/quote]
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the famous atheistic sham regarding personal experience.
"If I can see it myself, then maybe it might be true. But if a theist sees it for himself, and tells me about it, I won't believe it.(TM)"
[quote]Of course, I would like to add other methods, such as experimental, taking all the circumstances and so forth.[/quote]
Yet, funnily enough, we all believe things every day that, by their very nature, cannot be experimented. Most of us believe them unquestioningly. These beliefs are called properly-basic beliefs.
So I guess this sort of standard comes with another double-standard snuck in.
[quote]Regardless, it hardly matters what he himself meant, the point is that anecdotal evidence provides little compelling reason to believe.[/quote]
Which is a silly thing to say if you're going to turn around and use personal experience as a something that would make you believe. The person telling the story saw the same thing you would be seeing, but you won't believe it until you see it, which probably won't happen.
[quote]Even if he did mean that nothing would make him believe, that would add or detract nothing from the truth or nontruth of atheism, however, it would potentially detract from his ability to be called a freethinker.[/quote]
Of course it wouldn't. This topic isn't about the "truth or nontruth of atheism." This is all about freethinking and skepticism, which aren't exclusive to atheism.
[quote]THat being said, unless the conitions were all being monitered(and I'd prefer to either see it with my own eyes, and be verified by peer-reviews of professionals on the subject of...uh...frost?)[/quote]
Does that mean that even if you did see it with your own eyes, which I guess would mean sitting outside in the cold for two hours watching a car do nothing, you would still want it to be verified by peer-review?
Peer-reviewed by who, exactly? Perhaps an atheist journal?
I didn't know I had to spell it out. The meaning of 'what would convince me of the story's truth? Nothing.' means that nothing in story form would convince him it was true.
Name one thing of truth or non-truth which I believe at some points, without reasons?
No, by somebody with qualifications on whatever area of science frost falls under. Only when all the possible natural variables have been observed and been found not to have caused the frost could I then believe it to have been something supernatural. This is in part why I am opposed to supernatural explanations, because it immediately rules out finding potential natural explanations, which on an epistemological level, offends the senses.
I never said experiential would make ME believe. I was offering it as an example of a slightly better-up way of belief than story telling. However, I'd much prefer experimental. But yes, the fact that someone who believes in god sees something seeming to verify god's existence or the power of prayer is a lot less skepticaly addressed than would be an atheist's experience of the same thing, because that would be the last option I would consider, after first looking at all the possible scientific explanations I could think of.
Plus, there's absolutely no reason to believe the story wasn't completely contrived, or even hallucinated.
After all, there are also stories(normally circulated by the same group of internet story reposting idiots) which speak of boys born with no bodies, just burlap bags of leaves, who need you to repost the bulletin so that it will raise money for a full body transplant.
[quote]I didn't know I had to spell it out. The meaning of 'what would convince me of the story's truth? Nothing.' means that nothing in story form would convince him it was true.[/quote]
Again I say, then let him come and confirm that.
[quote]Name one thing of truth or non-truth which I believe at some points, without reasons?[/quote]
This is not what I said, nor will I ever say it. I don't believe anyone believes anything without reasons for their belief.
What I did say is that we all believe things that cannot be experimented. We believe, for example, that we exist in reality. We believe that we are real beings that actually exist, not data in a Matrix-like program that is programed to give certain reactions to stimulus. But you can't really prove it. This can't be experimented without first assuming it. That's why it's a [b]basic[/b] belief.
[quote]No, by somebody with qualifications on whatever area of science frost falls under. Only when all the possible natural variables have been observed and been found not to have caused the frost could I then believe it to have been something supernatural. This is in part why I am opposed to supernatural explanations, because it immediately rules out finding potential natural explanations, which on an epistemological level, offends the senses.[/quote]
I think the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is largely a farce. If God exists, then there is nothing "supernatural."
What people call "supernatural" is God acting in the world. But if this is a theistic universe, then God acting in the world is [b]natural[/b], isn't it? If you're going to keep calling things supernatural in this vein, then every thing that has ever existed is "supernatural" as it was created by God. I think it's simply a false dichotomy.
But either way, it intrigues me that you would say it "offends the senses" to rule out potential natural explanations. Suppose there was an event, like a regenerated limb in the Lourdes, or someone praying for God to heal there cancer and the cancer receding on the spot, that screamed "supernatural" (if you will). Would it still be offensive to the senses in this situation?
If someone stuck their stump in the Lourdes fountain and it grew back immediately, would your senses be offended if people thought it was God rather than some freaky gene abnormality?
[quote]I never said experiential would make ME believe. I was offering it as an example of a slightly better-up way of belief than story telling. However, I'd much prefer experimental. But yes, the fact that someone who believes in god sees something seeming to verify god's existence or the power of prayer is a lot less skepticaly addressed than would be an atheist's experience of the same thing, because that would be the last option I would consider, after first looking at all the possible scientific explanations I could think of.[/quote]
I really wonder how you would act in such an environment. Put yourself in the perspective of the friend in the story. Your friend was the theist who forgot his de-icer and prayed for his and your car to not get frosted over.
If this happened to you, would you literally subject it to scientific experimentation? Would you really look for "all the possible scientific explanations" in the first place?
[quote]Plus, there's absolutely no reason to believe the story wasn't completely contrived, or even hallucinated.[/quote]
Of course, this is pure skeptical bias from you, not valid free thinking. "Something contradicts my worldview...It must be either made up or someone hallucinated it!" This is your way of simply brushing the problem away rather than addressing it at all.
Funny...You do the same thing with the Jesus story, I bet. There's no reason to believe that the story of Jesus's ressurection wasn't either completely contrived or hallucinated, right?
[quote]After all, there are also stories(normally circulated by the same group of internet story reposting idiots) which speak of boys born with no bodies, just burlap bags of leaves, who need you to repost the bulletin so that it will raise money for a full body transplant.[/quote]
Of course, such a story isn't found in the place where I found my story, and there's an extreme category difference that I don't even think I need to address.
Ockham's Razor. The alternate reality would simply be adding another unnecessary link to the chain, and thus can be excluded on the basis of a priori knowledge. A priori knowledge is, in a way, better than experiential knowledge, because it doesn't rely on specifics, which there is so much you could just overlook accidentally. A priori statements can be said to be inherently true.
But this example is not something which can be put to apriori statements, because it involves specifics. Anything that has to do with one specific instance is experimental, but things which encompass ALL of any given thing, such as reality, are addressed as well by a priori knowledge.
No, if there were something which simply could not have any feasible way of being explained, it would annoy me, but I would definitely have to accept it.
I understand the natural/supernatural point very well actually. I would then say natural would be things happening within the current constraints, whereas anything spernatural would be happening contrary to what would have happened without godly intervention. But yes, I suppose if God exists, it's sorta a meaningless distinction.
Well yes, with things that don't contradict basic, alread known knowledge, there's no reason. But with something which has not happened before/seems unlikely or impossible, we have to consider which is more likely, that somebody made it up or only thought it happened, or that it actually happened. If I told you I jumped 40 feet in the air, surely you'd think I was lying or mistaken somehow, before first accepting that I were correct. If you didn't, I'd quite doubt your judgment skills.
[quote]Ockham's Razor. The alternate reality would simply be adding another unnecessary link to the chain, and thus can be excluded on the basis of a priori knowledge. A priori knowledge is, in a way, better than experiential knowledge, because it doesn't rely on specifics, which there is so much you could just overlook accidentally. A priori statements can be said to be inherently true.
But this example is not something which can be put to apriori statements, because it involves specifics. Anything that has to do with one specific instance is experimental, but things which encompass ALL of any given thing, such as reality, are addressed as well by a priori knowledge.
No, if there were something which simply could not have any feasible way of being explained, it would annoy me, but I would definitely have to accept it.
I understand the natural/supernatural point very well actually. I would then say natural would be things happening within the current constraints, whereas anything spernatural would be happening contrary to what would have happened without godly intervention. But yes, I suppose if God exists, it's sorta a meaningless distinction.[/quote]
Okay.
[quote]Well yes, with things that don't contradict basic, alread known knowledge, there's no reason. But with something which has not happened before/seems unlikely or impossible, we have to consider which is more likely, that somebody made it up or only thought it happened, or that it actually happened. If I told you I jumped 40 feet in the air, surely you'd think I was lying or mistaken somehow, before first accepting that I were correct. If you didn't, I'd quite doubt your judgment skills.[/quote]
Yes, you are correct. If you just came up and told me, "Hey, I jumped 40 feet in the air," I probably would think you were lying.
I would probably ask you how you did it. If you said that you used a trampoline, then I could potentially believe you, but I would think you might be exaggerating your numbers a bit. But if you said it was unaided, I would ask for some other evidence, like eyewitnesses. If you could provide me with several eyewitnesses saying that you jumped 40 feet in the air, well that would be an interesting moment indeed.
Well then you are incredibly more gullible than I would think...
I don't dozens of eyewitnesses for something like that would be enough. It is far more likely that they were all in some way deceived(or contrived to lie) than that somebody in such a way violated what we know. I would then like to analyze every variable of that situation.
Eye witnesses are easy to trick. You ever seen people like David Blaine or David Copperfield or Criss Angel fooling many, many eyewitnesses, even camera monitoring, which is why only through an examination of all variables can things be verified.
I have seen that circulating as a myspace story, at then end it said repost if you love jesus
[quote]Well then you are incredibly more gullible than I would think...[/quote]
Notice that I didn't say I would believe you if you gave me eyewitnesses. That's your insertion.
But apart from that, what about my approach is different than yours? If you said you jumped 40 feet in the air, I ask for evidence of your claim. I could reasonably accept it if you say you used naturalistic methods (i.e. trampoline) but I would still think you were exaggerating.
And besides, if it really was YOU that told me that you jumped 40 feet in the air, I doubt I would ever believe it, since you have such a bias against the supernatural anyway. I would assume that you were making it up to try and trap me.
[quote]I don't dozens of eyewitnesses for something like that would be enough.[/quote]
I bet if it was dozens of your atheist friends looking at it with a critical eye, you'd think differently.
[quote]It is far more likely that they were all in some way deceived(or contrived to lie) than that somebody in such a way violated what we know.[/quote]
Why, exactly?
[quote]I would then like to analyze every variable of that situation.[/quote]
Wouldn't we all? But sadly, most events of such nature can't be analyzed in the way you want.
Eye witnesses are easy to trick. You ever seen people like David Blaine or David Copperfield or Criss Angel fooling many, many eyewitnesses, even camera monitoring, which is why only through an examination of all variables can things be verified.[/quote]
Of course, the difference between magicians and miracoulous events is that magicians market themselves as [b]fictitious[/b] rather than reality. They're all happy to admit that it's all an illusion rather than something really happening.
[quote=P-Dunn]I wasn't really sure of what to call this topic, so I hope that the title I gave it ultimately satisfies what I'm trying to ask. Many atheists these days are also calling themselves "skeptics." They are skeptical of claims of the so called "supernatural."
Suppose we hear a story like this. I didn't make this up, I found this from a [url=http://www.byfaith.co.uk/paulmiracle.htm]website[/url].
[quote]"A few years ago, my wife and I had arranged to go for a restaurant meal with a lady friend. We left together, our friend leaving her car outside our house. It was a very cold winter's night, and a sharp frost was expected. We parked our car in a side street, and I realised I had forgotten the de- icer spray. So, I said a prayer, asking the Lord to protect our car from being iced up.
We spent about two hours in the restaurant, and when we came out it was bitterly cold. As we approached the street where we had parked the car, there were now several cars parked either side of ours, all totally covered in frost. I exclaimed "look at our car" - it was absolutely frost free! We rejoiced somewhat, glorying in the fact that God cares for even small details, like keeping our car frost free! We could imagine angels with hair dryers, blowing on our car. But that wasn’t all. When we arrived back to our street, our friend said excitedly, "look at my car"! All the parked cars were covered in frost, but her car was totally frost free! Minor miracles, but amazing all the same. What a wonderful God we serve!
Bob Jackson"[/quote]
What is your initial reaction to this? As skeptics, you obviously don't believe that it was God who protected the car from frost. So there are several other possible options.
So how do you interpret this story, as skeptics? Do you believe that Mr. Jackson was lying, or do you believe he is telling the truth? What sort of naturalistic explanation would you find satisfactory of this story? And lastly, what would it take to convince you that this story was actually God interacting in the world?
Thanks,
~P-Dunn[/quote]
It's pretty sad you've got to resort to this. God loves people enough to keep the frost off their cars when they pray for it, but he won't save starving children, he won't prevent unnecessary wars that kill thousands of people, and he won't stop deadly diseases. Marshall Brain has a point--why won't god heal amputees? God only works when whatever he supposedly did could have happened without him.
I live in Winnipeg, where the weather is very cold for over half the year. We don't always get frost during the winter. Sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't. That's just how it works. If you could give an example of something that's definitely god working, rather than just some weak example of mistaken causality, that would be much more convincing. At any rate, we shouldn't appeal to the supernatural until all natural options have been considered.
ADDENDUM: It is fairly likely that Mr Jackson is lying, too. Gods aren't proven, but frauds, especially religious, are a dime a dozen.
er..a large portion of magicians DON't admit that it's fictitious. That was the whole point of The Amazing James Randi speaking about how it all was in one of his books
:O. Agnostic Atheist?! Your back... Welcome!