Evidence for Non-Existence

There is an excellent blog here at http://rationesola.blogspot.com

In this blog entry http://rationesola.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-it-rational-to-believe-in.html the author makes a convoluted case for the improbability of Christian (and general) supernaturalism. I don't know if the author is male or female, so I'm taking a purely 50/50 (and possibly slightly politically correct) punt that she is a female. I will correct this if required should I obtain evidence of that necessity!

She makes the following point about the rationality of holding a belief in the Christian supernatural realm that is bread-and-butter agnosticism (and with which I fully agree):

Even if we granted, for the sake of argument, that the Christian supernatural realm might exist, the evidence, in this situation, is so bad that withholding belief in the existence of such a realm (or of any other) would be the only rational position available.

More importantly, like any good agnostic, she doesn't overstate the case:

It is important to note that this is not the same thing as saying that it is rational to believe that a supernatural realm does not exist. That position is not justified by the evidence: so far as that goes, it might well exist. 

And finally, but almost superfluously: 

But equally, just because we cannot confirm that a supernatural realm does not exist, doesn’t make it rational to believe that it does exist.

She is making the point that it is not rational to believe in something without evidence.

But then, in a footnote:

Another way of putting this is to speak in terms of probabilities. The absence of evidence for X doesn’t rule out the possibility that X could still exist. But it does make the existence of X highly improbable. So is it rationally acceptable to believe in something which, so far as the evidence goes, is highly improbable? 

Here is a glimpse of the the probabilities argument, elegantly graphed in Dawkins' The God Delusion, for positive atheism (for want of a better description) http://crtopherthinks.blogspot.com/2010/04/positive-and-negative.html

For if the absence of evidence for X makes X highly improbably and prompts the question "so is it rationally acceptable to believe in something which, so far as the evidence goes, is highly improbable?" then it equally suggests "is it rationally acceptable to NOT believe in something NOT existing, the existence of which, so far as the evidence goes, is highly improbable?"

In this quote the Solo Rationalist (yes yes I know....) appears to contradict her earlier point implying it would be less than rational to suggest the supernatural realm does not exist on the absence of evidence for its existence. In the probabilities argument, the absence of evidence makes it's existence highly improbable, and thus it's non-existence highly probable (since the probability coin can have only two sides). In this case it would seem quite rational to claim a belief in the non-existence of the supernatural, since to not believe in the non-existence of something that is highly improbable, is irrational!

I only make this point because many argue that agnosticism is the most rational position. And indeed on the face of it one must ask what constitutes evidence for the non-existence of something. Perhaps the probability concept will help me. I'm gonna think on it! BTW I don't mean to suggest that rationesola unknowingly contradicted herself. The footnote applied to an earlier part in the post than the part I initially quoted.

The Patient Atheist

http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2010/09/tomas-halik-atheism-and-patience.html

My comment.

Islam

Safe to say that Sam Harris is not a fan of Islam!

The question is "Is Islam the least tolerable of all the religions?" He writes...

At this point in human history, Islam simply is different from other faiths. The challenge we all face, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, is to find the most benign and practical ways of mitigating these differences and of changing this religion for the better.

Is Islam the type of religion that can be "changed for the better"? Is it open to reform? Is it reformable?

More on this later.

Elementary Rules of Logic

I don't want to get into the habit of just cutting and pasting other peoples ideas without qualification.....oh what the heck!

Hitchens Elementary rules of Logic (Slate Magazine)

1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 

2. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.


Pretty much sums it up for me!

Notes on Faith

NOTES ON FAITH

In his Dictionary of Philosophy, Peter Angeles offers as two definitions of "faith" among others: "belief in something despite the evidence against it" and "belief in something even though there is an absence of evidence for it."  http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa110.htm

In general to believe something (eg proposition X) is to think it to be true.  We generally come to believe something for a reason, that is we think we have evidence for the belief (that is for thinking something is true). And we generally agree that we believe things because of reason. Very few people when asked why they believe something would say “Oh, no reason” and really mean it. Developing our beliefs based on some kind of reasoning is the natural way in which humans come to form their beliefs.  If our beliefs about the world did not concur with what we observed of the natural world then as a means of instructing us to behave in ways to enhance our survival they would be useless. 

I think we have to define “faith” as a type of belief that THE BELIEVER ADMITS is not based reason. Otherwise we have these absurd debates about the definition of faith such as I’ve selected from this blog http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa110.htm

.....However, all criticism in this vein flows from a fundamental mistake as to the nature of Christian faith. As J. Gresham Machen boldly put the matter in his book, What is Faith?, "we believe that Christianity flourishes not in the darkness, but in the light." Machen wrote that "one of the means which the Spirit will use" to bring a revival of the Christian religion "is an awakening of the intellect." He fervently resisted "the false and disastrous opposition which has been set up between knowledge and faith," arguing that "at no point is faith independent of the knowledge upon which it is logically based." Reflecting upon the famous Biblical remark about faith in Hebrews 11:1 ("the evidence of things not seen"), Machen declared: "Faith need not be too humble or too apologetic before the bar of reason; Christian faith is a thoroughly reasonable thing."[4]

AND...

The Christian religion does not pit "faith" against reason, evidence or (above all) truth.

AND...

Christian faith does not aim to affirm what is absurd, reveling in irrationality. Such a thought misconstrues the nature of faith as it is presented by the Bible. The Christian notion of faith - unlike most other religions - is not an arbitrary leap of emotion, a blind stab of commitment, a placing of the intellect on hold. For the Christian, faith (or belief) is well-grounded.

If “faith is well-grounded” then lets call it “reason”.  If “at no point is faith independent of the knowledge upon which it is logically based" then lets call it “reason”. If “faith” is not pitted against reason, then why have two words, “reason” and “faith”. I think to be fair we have to say that faith is a belief without reason, otherwise we could dispense with the word altogether. 

Now I know that there will be a chorus of dissent amongst people of so-called “faith” at this point for, as noted above, most people are unhappy about the notion that they might hold their beliefs for no reason. And in fact, most people don’t (hold their beliefs without reason). It follows thus that there is really very little “faith” out there, but a lot of beliefs that are held simply for bad reasons.

Burqa Banning

The French are propsing to ban burqa wearing in their country. The burqa is the full, face-covering, Muslim veil, worn only by women, and thought by many to represent the subjugation of Muslim women by men. Christopher Hitchens wrote this piece in support of the ban: http://www.slate.com/id/2253493/

I wrote this response to his article on the Project Reason site:

http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/in_your_face_french_attempts_to_outlaw_the_burqa_strike_a_blow_for_the_righ/#c5729

In thinking about the issue afresh I am trying to clarify my thoughts. Let me state clearly that I understand that it's most likely that women are made to wear the burqa in many communities, in fear of the repercussions which would be handed out by men.

At the moment I can think of three arguments made in support of the burqa ban and I'll address them as I go.

1. Women are forced to wear it on pain of death or torture. Whilst I overwhelmingly agree this is the case, our laws should be made to address the 'forcing' part of it, not the end result of the force (the wearing of the veil). Hitchens states, with no hint of irony, "...they are attempting to lift a ban: a ban on the right of women to choose their own dress...". This would be fine unless a woman chose to wear a burqa, in which case she would be banned from choosing her own dress! It might be the case that some men in another order might require their women to go out in public dressed in their (the men's) previous day's unwashed footy gear, on pain of death or torture(obscure example I know...). Clearly we wouldn't ban footy gear, but we would investigate how we could prevent some humans from making other humans do and wear things that they do not want to.

2. It poses an unacceptable security risk. This is a reasonable point but would easily be addressed by requiring veil-wearers to adhere to existing laws and conventions governing any face-covering garment in certain situations. I agree strongly that no religious considerations could be invoked that would exempt a women from this standard.

3. It flies in the face of accepted Western values such as openess, and the ability to interact with someone fully by observing their face along with other elements of their conversation; or as Hitchens says "the right of all citizens to look one another in the face". Again I accept and understand this point - there are few better examples of the cultural divide between Muslims and, lets say for brevity, the "west" than this confronting piece of material. One could go as far as saying it is socially divisive in the sense that it entrenches a nearly insurmountable "us and them" mentality. We are on a slippery slope though if we start to approve laws that discriminate against a minority of people because their ways make the rest of us uncomfortable.

Are there other arguments in favour of banning the burqa? If I find some I'll address them here.

The positive and the negative

Is there really much difference between “not believing God exists” and “believing God does not exist”?

I didn’t think so either but apparently the former is negative atheism, and the latter positive atheism.

The negative atheist is obliged only to defend her non-belief on the basis that she refutes the reasons given for believing God exists. So she might answer the question “Why don’t you believe in God?” with a simple “I don’t believe there is a sufficient reason, or reasons, to believe in God”, or more obtusely “Why do you believe in God?”. She might go on then to refute specific reasons a believer might give for believing God exists. For example, a believer might say that they believe God exists because the Bible says so. The negative atheist responds that the Bible is just a book written by a number of Jews several thousand years ago, and just because they say God exists therein lies no more evidence for that claim than does there in Bertrand Russell’s claim that there exists a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars lie any evidence that there is in fact such a teapot.

The negative atheist also has access to the “extraordinary claims” argument. The claim that Jesus Christ was the first and only person in human history to be stone cold dead, and then subsequently not be dead but to be alive and walking amongst and talking with other humans is an extraordinary claim, in the sense that it requires an complete re-writing of the laws of the universe as we understand them at present. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An old book written several decades after the claimed event, with no other corroborating physical evidence, is not extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim. I’d venture to say it’s not even strong evidence.

In answer to the question “Why do you believe God doesn’t exist?” I’m tempted to suggest that the positive atheist might ask as equally obtusely as his negative cousin above, “Why don’t you believe God doesn’t exist?”. For the negative atheist, the obtuse reply is actually a valid point. The positive atheist however, like the negative atheist’s believer opponent above, is actually claiming to hold a belief. As such the burden of proof is on him.

I think in an everyday sense, when most people think of an atheist, they presume positive atheism, and indeed I think it is the more heroic position. It is however liable to be subject to the charge that one cannot prove the non-existence of God, and though one can then go on to talk about probabilities, as does Dawkins (whose book The God Delusion was primarily an attempt at positive atheism), I think, again in an everyday sense, one’s argument is fatally wounded by that charge. That the believer’s case is as equally wounded by the complimentary charge, is no comfort.

Faith 2

It's important to know what people mean when they talk about their "faith". It's important to know what they believe about belief!


Do they understand that faith is not reason? Is the apparent inconsistency in their belief(s) due to the abandonment of reason as a requirement for belief, or just bad reasoning?

It is in most cases the latter, since very few people, when pressed, accept that it is perfectly acceptable to believe something for no reason at all. That is, when they really think about it, faith is not an acceptable foundation for a belief. A serious, strongly held belief at any rate.

Are you an atheist?

If someone was to ask me "Are you an atheist?" and by that mean "Do you believe there is no God" and by that mean "Do you reject the idea that there exists an ominopotent, omniscient being that created the universe and everything in it, let alone one that has an interest in and is benevolent towards individual human beings?" I would have to answer "Only in the sense that if you call yourself a theist (or more likely a christian) you agree that you believe God exists, then I agree that I am atheist, in that I don't".

I might give a simpler answer to the question, which would be "In every practical way, yes".

This of course avoids that horribly semantic argument that ignores the weighting of evidence and probabilities, and in which everyone is, technically, agnostic. The argument goes like this:

Are you an atheist?

Yes.

Prove there is no God!

It can't be proven.

(Triumphantly) Then you cannot say there is no God.

This is perfectly true and reasonable. Of course, it applies in reverse, equally well, and thus quickly puts an end to any useful discussion that can be had. In these terms, we are all, theist and atheist alike, equally agnostic.

Dawkins on Q and A

This was on The Punch the other day.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/for-gods-sake-our-mps-should-stick-to-their-day-jobs/

You can watch the QndA episode here:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2831712.htm?clip=rtmp://cp44823.edgefcs.net/ondemand/flash/tv/streams/qanda/qanda_2010_ep05.flv

There were over 200 comments on this article for The Punch. I must admit I didn't read them all so I may have added something that had already been discussed. Oh well. Here's what I wrote:

Weird, David Penburthy. Not sure what had you all riled up that you wanted to kick the plasma! As you observed, this was an excellent session of QandA. Sorry for the late comment; I only saw the show yesterday.

Far from being intellectually belligerent and plain rude, I thought Richard Dawkins was a model of restraint and courtesy. At one point he was attacked by Tony Burke, and lost his cool slightly, but I think he did well, given the nonsense spoken by most of the rest of the panel.

Here's the weird thing about religious beliefs, whether you have them or not! No one wants to talk about them!! Aparently they are personal, not for public discussion, and even more bizarrely, they are not to affect our public behaviour or actions! You say it yourself David, and you're a self confessed atheist: "But many of us in Australia regard politics as the public sphere of life, and religion (or a lack of religion) as very much the private sphere."

I find this plainly bizarre! When Tony Burke was asked to talk about his Christian beliefs on the show, he swallowed nervously and said something along the lines of "I don't want to go there". What's going on here: Is he unsure of his belief? Is he ashamed of it? Why are his theist beliefs, significant as they are in informing his morality and general take on the universe, off-limits for public discussion? Richard Dawkins asked the same question on the show!

I don't agree with Tony Abott about much, including, most significantly his beliefs that are clearly inspired by his Catholism, but I am far more comfortable that he be open and honest about those beliefs, than I am that Tony Burke slinks around with the substance of his Christian beliefs unavailable for discussion or analysis, or even identification. I am amazed and appalled at the amount of Christianity that exists, apparently, in our houses of parliament, but I much prefer to know about it than not.

And the reason that I want to know about these background beliefs is because it's nonsense to say that "private" beliefs about the nature of God should not intrude on the course of day to day decision-making! Of course in an ideal world they shouldn't. But all of us, atheist and theist, we are all informed by our deepest beliefs about the nature of the universe. It's nonsense to say we are not, or that we can suppress that. Thus, I'd rather have it out in the open, rather than sneaking around behind this pretense of objectivity.

Task substitution

It’s my opinion that nursing took a wrong turn back when it became degree-based. There are good and bad aspects to both hospital-based and degree-based nursing training but I’m of the view that everything you can learn about being a fantastic, bedside nurse can be learnt sufficiently, if not in superior fashion, in hospital-based training. Nursing is a practical profession, vital to the effective, safe functioning of any hospital. It’s not to say that there is not a place for some academia in nursing, but that should be an option for those who want to go into reasearch or teaching.

I don’t support independant nurse practitioning! If you want to learn about diagnosis, and wish to order x-rays, and prescribe (as opposed to dispense) drugs, then you want to be a doctor. There is already a training path for this, There shouldn’t be a second one via nursing. The solution to health workforce shortages is not to take professionals from one area of practice, where they are already in short supply, and get them to do the jobs of another group, also in short supply. The solution is to train more of each professional group to do their own jobs, competently.

The Exhaustive Study of that which is Wholly Imaginary

"Fluency in theology--the exhaustive study of that which is wholly imaginary--is not required to deny the veracity of invented supernatural claims."

What a fabulously succinct description of theology, tucked away in an otherwise brilliant statement about a common problem that arises during a lot of discussions about religious ideas with religious people. You know, the point at which the theologian claims that just as he/she is not well versed in all aspects of the science, so the "scientist" is not an authority on the theology and thus we must "agree to differ"!

Ok, ok...it's not mine.

I found this little gem here by Paul Fidalgo at the Secularism Examiner.