Belief without evidence argument

rockbeer

fergalr wrote: »

Could well be at this stage! As long as I'm learning stuff, I'm happy, and I'm definitely learning stuff here.

Me too, it's good to think about this stuff once in a while. Wouldn't want to make it too much of a habit though

fergalr wrote: »

He is saying though that he believes the probability is very low. I'd disagree with him there - if he's referring to a non-interventionist god (or to the probability of any god existing, which includes the non-interventionist ones), then I'd say that probability is unknowable.

Here's why he (and I) conclude) that the probability of any god existing is very low in the absence of any evidence on the matter.

We have no evidence. As far as we know, 'god' is as likely as brains in vats, which in turn is as likely as computer sims, and so on. Agreed?

The probability of any one of these things being true, taken in isolation, is, as you say, unknowable.

However, because we have no data by which to filter all these things that could possibly be true, we have to assume there an infinite number of them, yes?

So, it follows that the probability of any particular one of them being true considered collectively and in the absence of any evidence, is 1/infinity, i.e. very very small indeed.

As soon as there's some evidence the odds will change drastically, but for the time being that's how it is. Anything you can imagine is just as (un)likely to be true as anything else. That's an honest position. It's fair enough to ask anybody who claims anything different to produce evidence.

fergalr wrote: »

I think this is a very reasonable position.
I can see no logical contradiction there.

That's a relief

leaba

fergalr wrote: »

Could well be at this stage! As long as I'm learning stuff, I'm happy, and I'm definitely learning stuff here.

...

I think this is a very reasonable position.
I can see no logical contradiction there.

I immediately withdraw my creationist comment.

fergalr

rockbeer wrote: »

Me too, it's good to think about this stuff once in a while. Wouldn't want to make it too much of a habit though

No, wouldn't get invited to many parties.


What you've written seems like quite a powerful argument, to me.

rockbeer wrote: »

Here's why he (and I) conclude) that the probability of any god existing is very low in the absence of any evidence on the matter.

We have no evidence. As far as we know, 'god' is as likely as brains in vats, which in turn is as likely as computer sims, and so on. Agreed?

The probability of any one of these things being true, taken in isolation, is, as you say, unknowable.

I agree with your second statement; the first one seems a little ambiguous, but definitely agree with the second, probability of any one of those things is unknowable.

rockbeer wrote: »

However, because we have no data by which to filter all these things that could possibly be true, we have to assume there an infinite number of them, yes?

Yes, I agree.

rockbeer wrote: »

So, it follows that the probability of any particular one of them being true considered collectively and in the absence of any evidence, is 1/infinity, i.e. very very small indeed.

As soon as there's some evidence the odds will change drastically, but for the time being that's how it is. Anything you can imagine is just as (un)likely to be true as anything else. That's an honest position. It's fair enough to ask anybody who claims anything different to produce evidence.

What you say assumes on a Bayesian interpretation of probability; a frequentest/physical probability interpretation, as I understand it, would reject reasoning about such probabilities of untestable things. But considering probability as not a measure of whether something actually 'is', but as descriptive of the claimants state of knowledge seems to be fine in this context.

One query occurred to me. While the probability of any one 'fully specified hypothesis', if you will, would be, as you say, 1/infinity, there are an infinite number of non-interventionist-god hypotheses, each with minor, negligible differences. If someone just says they believe in a non-interventionist-god hypothesis, and gives a list of specifics of the hypothesis, but doesn't claim to fully specify it, there are still an infinite number of hypotheses that fit what they said. You could say the infinite number of non-interventionist-god hypotheses is less than the infinite number of of (non-intervention-god OR brain-in-vat OR matrix) hypotheses.
But they are both uncountable (?), and your dividing one uncountable infinity by another to calculate the probability, which you need to do before you can attack belief in the non-interventionist-god class of problems on the basis of improbability.

I don't believe this argument though; it seems to absolve anyone of the need for evidence for believing in an unlikely hypothesis, on the basis that they could construct an infinity of minute variations on that unlikely hypothesis and thus argue there were an infinity of such hypothesis, and so challenge the probability - seems like rubbish to me, which is a contradiction, so the above doesn't hold on that grounds.

---

While I have to read back over the posts again to make sure I haven't missed anything out, or forgotten anything, on foot of the discussion here, I have to consider the following reasonable:
A position of no knowledge on things outside our reality, for example, brains-in-vats vs. non-interventionist-gods vs. wysiwyg
Disbelief in any particular theory make claims outside our reality, unless evidence can be produced for said claims, etc.
No contradiction for atheists who demand evidence for claims, as long as they themselves maintain a position of non-knowledge about other things outside our real experience.
I can't really accuse Dawkins etc of hypocrisy, as it's quite possible he doesn't make any claims about the perceived world being objectively 'real' (ie, definitely not brains-in-vats). Could always write to him and ask him, but I should probably let this slide on foot of the discussion here

I learned a lot about these issues thinking them out, and reading around them, and also a lot about trying to communicate, organise, and absorb written thoughts on this sort of complex issue, on an internet forum - thanks very much to everyone who replied.

stevejazzx

Ok, lets ask how probable (not mathamatical probability just reasoned logic vis a vis what we will allow here for the sake of argument as a structure of defining those things which it can be said that we are all in general agreement on unless we reduce everything to an existentialist relaity where everything has equal/no value) the alternatives are.

The alternative to pysical/external relaity not being in some way real or completely different from what we imagine it to be (becasue imagination is subjective and can adopt many notions which rationally would not all be correct) is, as many people have already postualted, a complex simulation where consciousness is the only reality (given that we must afford the term 'reality' a placeholder and of course reality here only means the thing which is 'most real' by the standard human worldly definiton and human/world here is the allowd idea that 'something rather nothing' exists).
So, in this alternative, the essence of human experience is the same except for the fact that physical matter is an agreed upon perception, not in the standard way we might percieve it but there would also be, in this example, another way (this is open) that we would have deduced that pysical/external reality is a simulation.
So upon agreeing that there is 'something' rather nothing, and that consciousness is the most likely 'something' (otherwise how could we even interact; consciousness of course being, in this example, a catch-all term for the word we use to define how we percieve anything at all). So consciousness is the placeholder for 'relaity' until we get a better one.

Given this reduction would it still make sense to seek eveidnece for the world around us and how should we go about finding and understanding the evidence?
It would still make sense becasue it would benefit us to understand the simulation and the scientific method is the best method we have (in this kind of relaity, as outlined above).
Therefore it still makes sense to criticise anyone who believe in things which have no evidence for them becasue even in the absence of external reality our consciousness exists and within it we have deduced methods for reasoning our existence. Now you will say at this juncture that a religous person has a right to reason for their god. This is true but their method of reasoning has to be testable otherwise it is nonsense. Importantly this holds true no matter how much we reduce 'reality' becasue ultimately we have to agree that reality is 'something' no matter how 'reduced' and within that something we have defined ways (via scientific method etc) of explaining natural phenomena, even if the phenomena are only simulations and we have defined ways of testing it even if the testing of it isn't accurate in a metaphysical sense.
The only way therefore that reliogus belief in a God (interventionist or not) holds the same gravitas as regular logic is if we were to speculate that even 'consciousness' is a simulation and the way we think and build logic and ideas is, in every respect, fundamentally flawed. Even in this example though belief in a God is only as good as belief in other thngs becasue all belifefs are, in this exmaple, by defualt, equally invalid.

rockbeer

fergalr wrote: »

What you say assumes on a Bayesian interpretation of probability; a frequentest/physical probability interpretation, as I understand it, would reject reasoning about such probabilities of untestable things. But considering probability as not a measure of whether something actually 'is', but as descriptive of the claimants state of knowledge seems to be fine in this context.

This is exactly why I think this is such a powerful argument and have no hesitation in using it. It may be meaningless in one sense, but it illustrates starkly the ignorance and irrationality that lie behind religious faith. To believe something on a personal level is one thing, but to fight holy wars, construct moral systems, proscribe certain types of behaviour and sit in judgement of your fellow humans on the basis of literally an infinity-to-one shot strikes me as something we should be taking a stronger stand against.

Eightball

I've always been astounded by the arrogance of Man to assume that anything that he can't understand or proof is therefore non-existant. On the one hand it's always said that art is from the soul and in the other that the soul does not exist. It's like a person walking into a roomful of art, makes reviews of the splendour of it all and then denies the existance of the artist. Amazing !!

Flamed Diving

Eightball wrote: »

I've always been astounded by the arrogance of Man to assume that anything that he can't understand or proof is therefore non-existant. On the one hand it's always said that art is from the soul and in the other that the soul does not exist. It's like a person walking into a roomful of art, makes reviews of the splendour of it all and then denies the existance of the artist. Amazing !!

Yeah, the cheek of them. I mean, there is no proof of Tooth Fairies, but that doesn't mean they don't exist!

condra

Eightball wrote: »

I've always been astounded by the arrogance of Man to assume that anything that he can't understand or proof is therefore non-existant.

With things he cannot understand, man has a tendency to attribute them to supernatural things, i.e you're wrong.

It's like a person walking into a roomful of art, makes reviews of the splendour of it all and then denies the existance of the artist. Amazing !!

Your logic is flawed and your analogy is unsuitable. Google: evidence

fergalr

I'd be worried about that post derailing the thread - but the thread has already come to it's end of the line.
We discussed some aspects belief without evidence in detail in this thread - I was specifically interested in what people do perhaps believe without evidence.

I've always been astounded by the arrogance of Man to assume that anything that he can't understand or proof is therefore non-existant.

The problem is, that without taking into account evidence, it's very difficult to be right when believing something exists. Unless there's a reason to believe one theory about something over others, it's very easy to choose the wrong theory, by mistake, and so believe the wrong thing.
There isn't always evidence for why some things are the way they are, and many people would thus remain undecided on things that fall into that category.

I wouldn't say particularly many people do, as you suggest, think that things they don't understand, or can't prove, are non existent. I'm not even fully sure what your statement means - for example, I wouldn't say I understand antibiotics - not at any real level, or genetic engineering, but I think both of those things exist.

On the one hand it's always said that art is from the soul and in the other that the soul does not exist.

People that say 'art is from the soul', meaning soul to be some sort of immortal non physical thing that people have, probably wouldn't say the soul doesn't exist.
People that don't believe in that immortal non physical thing would probably either not use that expression, or would use it metaphorically.

It's like a person walking into a roomful of art, makes reviews of the splendour of it all and then denies the existance of the artist. Amazing !!

What is like walking into a roomful of art [etc]?
Walking into a roomful of art, where by art you mean something created by artists, and denying the existance of the artist would be pretty silly alright.

If you mean art though, as including things like pictures created by a computer program making random pictures, it might be less silly to deny the existence of an artist.
If a computer which clearly doesn't have a soul, generates random splogs of colour, and I put that on a wall, would you deny the existence of an artist?

rockbeer

Eightball wrote: »

I've always been astounded by the arrogance of Man to assume that anything that he can't understand or proof is therefore non-existant.

It's not a question of assuming things don't exist but of not assuming they do.

Tell me, just out of interest, do you assume that Apollo, Shiva and Osiris exit?