Null hypothesis: valid or invalid?

[zro_x]

In debates about theism and atheism, which is the default position and who has the burden of proof?

Well, let’s take your example of two worlds where one is entirely naturalistic, and the other is both naturalistic and supernatural, but you cannot demonstrate the supernatural.

Let’s say you don’t know which one you’re on. Naturalism is demonstrated to be essentially correct, but there are still gaps in its knowledge where the supernatural could be.

Is it then reasonable to assume the existence of a god with a multitude of attributes ascribed to it, a heaven, a hell, angels, demons, and so on?

Or is it more reasonable to wield Occam’s Razer and limit your number of entities until they are required?

It would be much more reasonable to weild Occam’s razor… but only if we look at it from a purely scientific perspective.

The following is my proof for why the null hypothesis is invalid:

1. cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore, I am. Or, I am a conscious being), what all non-mathematical proofs must be ultimately based on.
2. as a conscious being, I note that I percieve a world.
3. I note that this world relies on cause and effect, that is to say, things don’t happen completely randomly. nature is predictable, at least to a certain degree. This means that my perception of the world is caused by something.
4. at this point, there are two things that I know exist. my mind, and my percieved world.(note that this world does not have to exist materially yet. I am merely saying that it exists in my mind.) because of this, I can speculate on how the two are related.
5. I note that my percieved world can not be caused by my conscious mind. only a small part of my world (my body) is affected by my conscious whims.
6. I also note that this world can not be caused by my subconscious mind, at least not all the time. I can recognise when my reality is created by my subconscious mind, because I am asleep.
7. there are now only two possibilities. Either the world I percieve really exists and is responsible for my mind(naturalism) or else my percieved world is created by some other mind! (the primitive basis for theism)

I realise that this by no means proves that catholicism is true, but at least it gives us theists some room to say that naturalism and another creative mind are equally probable.

Any thoughts? questions, comments, and refutations are welcome!

 

[Doxus]

You should divide that into Premise/Conclusion for easier following.

Point 6 is disputable, because your subconscious could be much smarter than you are and may have some reason for making it appear that it does not control the world. This is not logically falsifiable, and I usually describe it as “Soft Solipsism”. I don’t subscribe to it myself.

The problem is that Point 7 is not in line with the theology you actually support. If it were actually the basis of your theology, then sure you’d have some wiggle room. But that’s not what you actually say… If “my percieved world is created by some other mind!” then clearly the Matrix is as likely as god. I’d like to see your argument from “Cogito ergo sum” to “Personal god” in P/C format. You don’t have to justify all of Catholicism, or even Christianity, just a god as you see it.

 

[zro_x]

You should divide that into Premise/Conclusion for easier following.

sorry, that was the first time I actually tried to write a formal proof. I confess that I don’t really know how to write in p/c format.

Point 6 is disputable, because your subconscious could be much smarter than you are and may have some reason for making it appear that it does not control the world. This is not logically falsifiable, and I usually describe it as “Soft Solipsism”. I don’t subscribe to it myself.

hmm, I guess that is a possibility, though I don’t think it needs to be discussed right now if few people take it seriously.

The problem is that Point 7 is not in line with the theology you actually support. If it were actually the basis of your theology, then sure you’d have some wiggle room. But that’s not what you actually say… If “my percieved world is created by some other mind!” then clearly the Matrix is as likely as god.

This is where miracles come in to play. Veiwed from a purely naturalistic perspective, ockham’s razor dictates that even the most elaborate miracles are probably much less likely to be true than naturalism. But once you accept that a different mind that created the world and its physical laws, and as such, can mess with them, is just as likely as naturalism, suddenly miracles carry a lot more weight, and deserve a closer look. When you consider each miricle by itself, it isn’t completely conclusive, but they begin to add up after a while. Dark magic, excorcisms, the incorruptible saints, the sun dance at fatima, Jesus’s ressurection, the various miricles of each saint… the list goes on. I confess that I’m only aware of miracles within the Catholic church. If some other religion came up with a list of claimed miracles as large as that of Catholics, I’d be compelled to check that religion out more closely. and of course, if someone comes up with reasons why each miracle is a fraud, I’ll be right back to where I started, with a shaky proof in the existence of the possibility of a mind that created the world.

I’d like to see your argument from “Cogito ergo sum” to “Personal god” in P/C format. You don’t have to justify all of Catholicism, or even Christianity, just a god as you see it.

believe me, I would too. But I can’t. I already mentioned that I was a two and a half on the dawkin’s scale. This is why. I can’t prove conclusively that God exists, only that his existence is surprisingly highly probable.

I’d love to talk more, but it’s two thirty in mountain time, and I should probably be going to bed. I should be back tomorrow though.

 

[Reepicheep]

…Hmm.

Originally Posted by Doxus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Well, let’s take your example of two worlds where one is entirely naturalistic, and the other is both naturalistic and supernatural, but you cannot demonstrate the supernatural.

Let’s say you don’t know which one you’re on. Naturalism is demonstrated to be essentially correct, but there are still gaps in its knowledge where the supernatural could be.

Is it then reasonable to assume the existence of a god with a multitude of attributes ascribed to it, a heaven, a hell, angels, demons, and so on?

Or is it more reasonable to wield Occam’s Razer and limit your number of entities until they are required?​

*First: Occam’s Razor is a useful rule of thumb. It is not a scientific law.
To rule out the possibility that the conclusion that requires more hypotheses might still be true, is to needlessly limit the options for investigation.

Second: To say that “Naturalism is demonstrated to be essentially correct” seems to me to prejudge the case
It might be more accurate to say that at that point naturalism seems to be compatible with the observed facts, but there are still things naturalism fails to explain.

Third: One might suppose the existence of a God without assuming the existence of heaven or hell, angels or demons.

Granted that Christianity does assume the existence of these things, but we aren’t yet at the point of asking whether Christianity is true
We’re discussing whether the supernatural might exist.

 

[inocente]

In science the null hypothesis is chosen to assume as few relationships as possible, and is tested against a hypothesis which does assert relationships. For instance when testing a new medicine the null hypothesis is that the medicine doesn’t work.

Theism asserts a relationship between the world and a supernatural mind while atheism doesn’t, so atheism is the better candidate for null hypothesis.

And of course, since a supernatural mind can’t be tested, theism isn’t even a scientific hypothesis. If it were then God could be tested, but He can’t, which is fine.

 

[Doxus]

In science the null hypothesis is chosen to assume as few relationships as possible, and is tested against a hypothesis which does assert relationships. For instance when testing a new medicine the null hypothesis is that the medicine doesn’t work.

Theism asserts a relationship between the world and a supernatural mind while atheism doesn’t, so atheism is the better candidate for null hypothesis.

And of course, since a supernatural mind can’t be tested, theism isn’t even a scientific hypothesis. If it were then God could be tested, but He can’t, which is fine.

Well stated, friend.

 

[Doxus]

This is where miracles come in to play. Veiwed from a purely naturalistic perspective, ockham’s razor dictates that even the most elaborate miracles are probably much less likely to be true than naturalism. But once you accept that a different mind that created the world and its physical laws, and as such, can mess with them, is just as likely as naturalism, suddenly miracles carry a lot more weight, and deserve a closer look. When you consider each miricle by itself, it isn’t completely conclusive, but they begin to add up after a while. Dark magic, excorcisms, the incorruptible saints, the sun dance at fatima, Jesus’s ressurection, the various miricles of each saint… the list goes on. I confess that I’m only aware of miracles within the Catholic church. If some other religion came up with a list of claimed miracles as large as that of Catholics, I’d be compelled to check that religion out more closely. and of course, if someone comes up with reasons why each miracle is a fraud, I’ll be right back to where I started, with a shaky proof in the existence of the possibility of a mind that created the world.

I can assure you that Islam has just as long a list of miracles as Catholicism, as do most major Protestant sects, as does Hinduism, as do several sects of Buddhism. Miracles are not unique to your sect and if they are the sole basis for belief then I must question how much research you did in the field before betting the farm, as it were, on Catholicism.

Pascal’s Wager is a sucker’s bet.

 

[Reepicheep]

In science the null hypothesis is chosen to assume as few relationships as possible, and is tested against a hypothesis which does assert relationships. For instance when testing a new medicine the null hypothesis is that the medicine doesn’t work.

Theism asserts a relationship between the world and a supernatural mind while atheism doesn’t, so atheism is the better candidate for null hypothesis.

And of course, since a supernatural mind can’t be tested, theism isn’t even a scientific hypothesis. If it were then God could be tested, but He can’t, which is fine.

Atheism does make an assertion. Atheism asserts that there cannot be a supernatural being.
Also you say a supernatural mind can’t be tested. I say that the concept can be examined.
One may at the very least perform thought experiments regarding the existence of the supernatural.
Further if someone makes the assertion that supernatural power has in some way intervened in the world, one may test the evidence for that assertion.
One may, for example, examine the historical claims for the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth, and the claims for (unexplainable by Naturalism) healing, raising of the dead, and other events.

You say “Theism isn’t even a scientific hypothesis”.
Well, it isn’t a hypothesis in physics or chemistry, that’s true.
Do you exclude Philosophy from the list of the sciences?

The fact that Physics can’t perform experiments on God does not mean that we can’t meaningfully investigate the possibility of God’s existence.

 

[Reepicheep]

I can assure you that Islam has just as long a list of miracles as Catholicism, as do most major Protestant sects, as does Hinduism, as do several sects of Buddhism. Miracles are not unique to your sect and if they are the sole basis for belief then I must question how much research you did in the field before betting the farm, as it were, on Catholicism.

Pascal’s Wager is a sucker’s bet.

Indeed, it takes more than claims of miracles to prove a religon is true.
Further it takes more than proven miracles to prove a religion is true.
And Pascal’s Wager is at best a poor reason for the decision it advocates.

 

[Doxus]

Atheism does make an assertion. Atheism asserts that there cannot be a supernatural being.

BUUZZZZZZ

Oooh, sorry, no points awarded. Show’s over, don’t forget to neuter your pets!

Atheism does not take the stance or make the assertion that there is no god or that god is impossible. A few atheists do; they’re called Strong Atheists, and it’s a minority.

The vast majority of modern atheists point out that you cannot disprove a non-falsifiable concept, which is what god is. All we ask is that evidence be provided that he does, before we accept his existence and start paying the tithe. This is called Agnostic Atheism, and it’s almost ubiquitous among self-described atheists.

Certainty in the lack of deities may approach 100% asymptotically; but if you recall your high school math, the asymptote will never quite reach 100%. And it’s an important philosophical distinction.

God could exist. There’s no good evidence of him. You can make up reasons why he might hide, but the least hypothesis is that he does not exist, until evidence is provided that he does.

Miracles, personal revelation, Kalam, ontological arguments, Biblical authority, and Pascal’s wager all fail as evidence, in the estimation of myself and about 63 million other Americans.

 

[Reepicheep]

BUUZZZZZZ

Oooh, sorry, no points awarded. Show’s over, don’t forget to neuter your pets!

Atheism does not take the stance or make the assertion that there is no god or that god is impossible. A few atheists do; they’re called Strong Atheists, and it’s a minority.

The vast majority of modern atheists point out that you cannot disprove a non-falsifiable concept, which is what god is. All we ask is that evidence be provided that he does, before we accept his existence and start paying the tithe. This is called Agnostic Atheism, and it’s almost ubiquitous among self-described atheists.

Certainty in the lack of deities may approach 100% asymptotically; but if you recall your high school math, the asymptote will never quite reach 100%. And it’s an important philosophical distinction.

God could exist. There’s no good evidence of him. You can make up reasons why he might hide, but the least hypothesis is that he does not exist, until evidence is provided that he does.

Miracles, personal revelation, Kalam, ontological arguments, Biblical authority, and Pascal’s wager all fail as evidence, in the estimation of myself and about 63 million other Americans.

Perhaps we disagree over the meaning of the word rather than over other issues?
As I understand it, Weak Agnosticism is the position that “We don’t know whether there is a God”.
Strong Agnosticism is the position that “We can’t know whether there is a God.”
Weak Atheism is “I don’t believe there is a God”.
Strong Atheism is “It is proven that there is no God.”

What you call “Agnostic Atheism” I would call just “Agnosticism”.
Atheism, as I understand the word, does say “There is no God”.
Atheists vary among themselves as to how strongly they hold that position, but it is a position which they assert.

*“All we ask is that evidence be provided that he does, before we accept his existence and start paying the tithe” *

Fair enough, and very reasonable.

 

[inocente]

Atheism does make an assertion. Atheism asserts that there cannot be a supernatural being.

A standard definition of the null hypothesis is:- the proposition that implies no effect or no relationship between phenomena.

Theism asserts a relationship between a supernatural mind and the world, and so fails to meet the definition.

Also you say a supernatural mind can’t be tested. I say that the concept can be examined.

But null hypothesis is a scientific term and it’s only purpose is in physical testing.

One may, for example, examine the historical claims for the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth, and the claims for (unexplainable by Naturalism) healing, raising of the dead, and other events.

But by making that the null hypothesis, you’d be asserting that raising the dead and other miracles are the normal course of events when clearly they aren’t.

You say “Theism isn’t even a scientific hypothesis”.
Well, it isn’t a hypothesis in physics or chemistry, that’s true.
Do you exclude Philosophy from the list of the sciences?

To be counted as scientific, a hypothesis must make a prediction which can be physically tested in nature.

The fact that Physics can’t perform experiments on God does not mean that we can’t meaningfully investigate the possibility of God’s existence.

Do you agree that it’s demeaning to think of God as something to perform experiments on?

He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis. - Monsignor Georges Lemaître, originator of the big bang theory

 

[Reepicheep]

A standard definition of the null hypothesis is:- the proposition that implies no effect or no relationship between phenomena.

Theism asserts a relationship between a supernatural mind and the world, and so fails to meet the definition.

But I don’t say that Supernaturalism is a null hypothesis. I say that Naturalism is not. Both the Naturalist and the Supernaturalist are making assertions.

But null hypothesis is a scientific term and it’s only purpose is in physical testing.

Then it does not apply to this subject at all, in which case why assert that we must accept naturalism as a null hypothesis?

But by making that the null hypothesis, you’d be asserting that raising the dead and other miracles are the normal course of events when clearly they aren’t.

I don’t ask you to make that the null hypothesis.

To be counted as scientific, a hypothesis must make a prediction which can be physically tested in nature.

Don’t you agree that it’s demeaning to think of God as something to perform experiments on?

Depends on your meaning. To investigate whether God exists is not the same thing as to perform laboratory experiments on God.

He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis. - Monsignor Georges Lemaître, originator of the big bang theory

*Then why are we applying the idea of “null hypothesis” to this subject at all?

 

[inocente]

But I don’t say that Supernaturalism is a null hypothesis. I say that Naturalism is not. Both the Naturalist and the Supernaturalist are making assertions.

You can’t have a hypothesis that doesn’t make assertions. The assertion that no assertions are being made is an assertion!

Then it does not apply to this subject at all, in which case why assert that we must accept naturalism as a null hypothesis?

There are no theories in science that are not naturalistic. Because any hypothesis which wasn’t naturalistic failed any and every physical test.

I don’t ask you to make that the null hypothesis.

Cool, then we agree that miracles and supernatural events are not the default.

Depends on your meaning. To investigate whether God exists is not the same thing as to perform laboratory experiments on God.

It is the same if you want to do it scientifically. You can’t do science without physical testing.

Then why are we applying the idea of “null hypothesis” to this subject at all?

Don’t know, it’s not my thread.

 

[inocente]

You can’t have a hypothesis that doesn’t make assertions. The assertion that no assertions are being made is an assertion!

There are no theories in science that are not naturalistic. Because any hypothesis which wasn’t naturalistic failed any and every physical test.

Cool, then we agree that miracles and supernatural events are not the default.

It is the same if you want to do it scientifically. You can’t do science without physical testing.

Don’t know, it’s not my thread.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

BUUZZZZZZ

Oooh, sorry, no points awarded. Show’s over, don’t forget to neuter your pets!

Atheism does not take the stance or make the assertion that there is no god or that god is impossible. A few atheists do; they’re called Strong Atheists, and it’s a minority.

The vast majority of modern atheists point out that you cannot disprove a non-falsifiable concept, which is what god is. All we ask is that evidence be provided that he does, before we accept his existence and start paying the tithe. This is called Agnostic Atheism, and it’s almost ubiquitous among self-described atheists.

Then the agnostic atheist is an extremely unvocal majority. Most atheists, both here on this forum and in person, are of the strong atheist position who definitely assert that God does not exist.

Certainty in the lack of deities may approach 100% asymptotically; but if you recall your high school math, the asymptote will never quite reach 100%. And it’s an important philosophical distinction.

God could exist. There’s no good evidence of him. You can make up reasons why he might hide, but the least hypothesis is that he does not exist, until evidence is provided that he does.

Miracles, personal revelation, Kalam, ontological arguments, Biblical authority, and Pascal’s wager all fail as evidence, in the estimation of myself and about 63 million other Americans.

But it works for about 200 million Americans

 

[Deers]

I can assure you that** Islam has just as long a list of miracles** as Catholicism, as do most major Protestant sects, as does Hinduism, as do several sects of Buddhism. Miracles are not unique to your sect and if they are the sole basis for belief then I must question how much research you did in the field before betting the farm, as it were, on Catholicism.

Just out of curiosity…like?

 

[devoutchristian]

Just out of curiosity…like?

There are none, or at least none that can’t be easily dismissed.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Then the agnostic atheist is an extremely unvocal majority.

I’d agree with that. Most that I know might also be described as apatheistic and find topics of religion unimportant. So they don’t find the need or motivation to be very vocal about it. Though to be fair most of the religious and non-religious people that I know seem to be unaware of most of the topics I’ve seen discussed here. (ex: the non religious that I know largely have no idea of who “Dawkins” is, just as the religious I know don’t know who “Yahweh” is). The impression I’ve gotten from viewing my small patch of the world is that the more vocal one’s (whether religious or non-religious) are in the minority. Beyond a few that pray before they eat there’s not much that externally distinguishes one group from another.

 

[zro_x]

I can assure you that Islam has just as long a list of miracles as Catholicism, as do most major Protestant sects, as does Hinduism, as do several sects of Buddhism.

Just about every religion claims miracles, but how solid are they? I’m not talking about seeing the blessed virgin in a pancake or being cured of a headache after praying to some saint, or having wonderful weather for your anual parish picnic. I’m talking about claims of serious miricles, like a resurrection after a death on a cross, or 70,000 people, including atheists and sceptics, witnessing the sun dance at fatima.

Even if other religions do have legitimate major miracles, that only means that God works through them as well. Of course, I’d have to take a closer look at each one to determine which is the true church. If you know of any religions that have miraculous claims as big and well founded as ours, I’m all ears. If you know of any reason why the miracles I’ve listed here are bogus, I’m all ears for that too.

The other issue is that a religion’s doctrine must be internally consistent and non-contradictory. If a religion has contrdictory teachings, then we probably have to throw it out, even if it has well founded miraculous claims. I believe that the Catholic church fits those criteria.

Miracles are not unique to your sect and if they are the sole basis for belief then I must question how much research you did in the field before betting the farm, as it were, on Catholicism.

Honestly, not a whole lot, but research is a continual process, and you have to base the decisions in your life on the knowledge you have at any given time. That’s part of the reason why I’m on this forum, so that I can do more research.

Pascal’s Wager is a sucker’s bet.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that, but this has nothing to do with Pascal’s wager. I don’t believe in God because it is better for my sake if he exists. I believe in him as a mind behind our universe that shows himself from time to time to certain people through his miracles.