Scientism's Creed

[ChristIsTheWay]

I meant what I said: that evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of human inquiry.

That is all fine and well but can you provide evidence in support of this claim? Can this evidence rise to the level of proof?

We rationally determine – on the basis of our past experience of the universe – the kind of evidence that would convince us of the claim, that is to say, the kind of evidence we would expect to see if the claim were true.

That also sounds like it has the potential to be very subjective. Your past experiences and my past experiences are not the same. No two persons are. How can we establish an objective criteria for evidence?

For example, the evidence of my past experience demonstrates to me that entities that exist outside of the human mind can be detected by any impartial observer, regardless of that observer’s desires (in some cases, certain tools might be necessary to perceive the entities, but in those cases, every impartial observer who uses the tools is capable of detecting the entities).

How do you know your past experiences are correct? I have seen no evidence, by you or anyone else, that your assessment is correct.

As a result, if you intend to convince me that an entity outside of the human mind exists, you’re going to have to demonstrate that this entity can be detected by any impartial observer. You don’t need to conduct a scientific experiment here or anything – as I noted, the vast majority of what I know doesn’t come from any kind of formal science: it comes from evidence observed in the day-to-day world.

Yes, I undestand that. I don’t really intend, by the way, to convince you of anything. At the moment, however, you haven’t given me any reason to assume that all outside entities can be observed by an impartial observor. Sure, it sounds reasonable but I see no evidence for it.

Now if you tell me that this entity “exists” yet does not manifest in the world in a detectable way, then this entity is indistinguishable from an imaginary entity.

I didn’t say that. However, you haven’t established it as true that a being must be detectable, expect from subjective past experiences.

 

[buffalo]

There’s no such thing as “scientism.” No one with a lick of intelligence believes any of those things as a creed.

Surely you jest. Scientism is alive and well.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

IWhat’s your basis for believing this?

I wasn’t going to address this kind of question but I’ll go ahead. I find that, over all, I prefer something along the lines of Alvin Plantinga’s epistemology. Perhaps not exactly as he formulates it but something akin to that.

Also, the case for the resurrection as presented by folks like William Lane Craig and Michael Licona.

 

[AntiTheist]

That is all fine and well but can you provide evidence in support of this claim? Can this evidence rise to the level of proof?

There’s a ton of evidence – take, for example, the fact that every piece of technology that improves our lives in very concrete ways (including the computer you are reading this message on) is a product of various forms of evidence-based inquiry.

No other supposed method of acquiring knowledge has demonstrated such consistent reliability about the external world.

I don’t know what standard of proof you’re looking for, but I’m certainly capable of looking at that evidence and deciding that this evidence-based inquiry stuff has something going for it, whereas other supposed methods of acquiring knowledge (examining your inner feeling, or divination performed in tea leaves, maybe?) have not yielded anywhere close to such an impressive array of results about the external world.

That also sounds like it has the potential to be very subjective. Your past experiences and my past experiences are not the same. No two persons are. How can we establish an objective criteria for evidence? …]How do you know your past experiences are correct?

Indeed our experiences are different, but they are similar on enough points that we have a basis for discussion. If they were not, we couldn’t even converse. I accept that different people might have slightly different standards of what they each consider convincing to them, but there is not an infinite degree of variance.

Based on our experience, we can come to rational inferences, such as the fact that external entities can be observed by any impartial observer.

Now, look, I know that the old apologetics game of “let’s pretend that real knowledge is nothing more than faith so that any old story is equally likely to be true” is an old one, and a fun one, but the game is up. One dead giveaway is the fact that you don’t use the kind of “logic” you’re trying to advance here in regards to any real life situations.

For example, let’s say that you go up on a high cliff, and someone says, “Don’t jump – you’ll die if you do.” Never in a million years would you turn around and say something like, “Oh, but how do you really know that? You’re just generalizing on the basis of experience, and how do you know your subjective experience is true? In reality, your belief that a jumper will die is just as much faith as any other belief, so my deep inner conviction – based on my feelings --that I will live if I jump is just as likely to be true as your conclusion on the basis of your equally subjective ‘experience.’”

The fact that you apply this twisted logic when talking about religion but not in any other circumstances of life suggests very strongly that it’s nothing more than a game you’re playing to justify this one unjustifiable belief to yourself, for no reason other than you want it to be true.

Imagine if an engineer was presenting plans to build a bridge, and he said that he wasn’t going to build supports or use any safety measures that normally go into bridge construction because “those measures were decided on the basis of evidence, which is oh-so-subjective, just as subjective as my precious feelings that are telling me that I don’t need to build supports or safety mechanisms. The belief that a bridge needs supports and safety features is just as much a faith as my deep inner conviction – based on feelings – that the bridge will be just fine without them.”

It just goes to show you that the only area of life that anyone would ever apply such a silly kind of logic to is one in which they wish to justify believing in something that is unjustified by evidence.

It’s an old game that has to end.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

There’s a ton of evidence – take, for example, the fact that every piece of technology that improves our lives in very concrete ways (including the computer you are reading this message on) is a product of various forms of evidence-based inquiry.

How, then, do you know that evidence-based inquiry is sufficient to learn about all aspects of reality? Can you offer any evidence of this? No one disputes that the sciences can provide useful information and neat technological gadgets. Beyond that, you have offered no definition of evidence except something relating to purely subjective past experiences.

I can completely agree with the claim that evidence-based inquiry is the best method of learning about the world. The dispute is arising over what constitutes evidence, whether it is subjective or objective, etc. And yes, there are questions about the limits of this method of inquiry.

No other supposed method of acquiring knowledge has demonstrated such consistent reliability about the external world.

No one is disputing that evidence is important or highly effective.

I don’t know what standard of proof you’re looking for, but I’m certainly capable of looking at that evidence and deciding that this evidence-based inquiry stuff has something going for it, whereas other supposed methods of acquiring knowledge (examining your inner feeling, or divination performed in tea leaves, maybe?) have not yielded anywhere close to such an impressive array of results about the external world.

I don’t dispute that evidence-based inquiry has something going for it. You make unnecessary assumptions about me. What I am getting at is the question of what constitutes evidence.

Indeed our experiences are different, but they are similar on enough points that we have a basis for discussion. If they were not, we couldn’t even converse. I accept that different people might have slightly different standards of what they each consider convincing to them, but there is not an infinite degree of variance.

Do you have evidence for this claim?

Based on our experience, we can come to rational inferences, such as the fact that external entities can be observed by any impartial observer.

You have offered no evidence that this is the case. We can infer that there are external entities that can be observed by an impartial observer but you have offered absolutely no evidence that all external entities can be observed by an impartial observer.

Now, look, I know that the old apologetics game of “let’s pretend that real knowledge is nothing more than faith so that any old story is equally likely to be true” is an old one, and a fun one, but the game is up. One dead giveaway is the fact that you don’t use the kind of “logic” you’re trying to advance here in regards to any real life situations.

I didn’t make that assertion at all. You’re putting words in my mouth. You’re also verging on making a strawman argument.

For example, let’s say that you go up on a high cliff, and someone says, “Don’t jump – you’ll die if you do.” Never in a million years would you turn around and say something like, “Oh, but how do you really know that? You’re just generalizing on the basis of experience, and how do you know your subjective experience is true? In reality, your belief that a jumper will die is just as much faith as any other belief, so my deep inner conviction – based on my feelings --that I will live if I jump is just as likely to be true as your conclusion on the basis of your equally subjective ‘experience.’”

The fact that you apply this twisted logic when talking about religion but not in any other circumstances of life suggests very strongly that it’s nothing more than a game you’re playing to justify this one unjustifiable belief to yourself, for no reason other than you want it to be true.

You have merely created a strawman to argue against. The rest of your argument seems to consist of this, so I won’t address it any further.

 

[AntiTheist]

We can infer that there are external entities that can be observed by an impartial observer but you have offered absolutely no evidence that all external entities can be observed by an impartial observer.

We can indeed infer that external entities can be observed by any impartial observer – we have lots and lots and lots of examples of this.

On the other hand, we have no examples – none whatsoever – of external entities that cannot be detected by any impartial observer.

On the basis of such overwhelming amounts of evidence, we can infer, using inductive reasoning applied to evidence, that external entities are those that can be detected by any impartial observer. This claim, because it is an induction, is not an absolute claim, nor do I make it with an assumption of 100% certainty. I would be perfectly willing to modify this claim if new evidence became available.

All I’m claiming is that based on the evidence that I’ve observed thus far, it is very likely that external entities are ones that can be detected by any impartial observer.

Do you dispute that conclusion?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

We can indeed infer that external entities can be observed by any impartial observer – we have lots and lots and lots of examples of this.

On the other hand, we have no examples – none whatsoever – of external entities that cannot be detected by any impartial observer.

On the basis of such overwhelming amounts of evidence, we can infer, using inductive reasoning applied to evidence, that external entities are those that can be detected by any impartial observer. This claim, because it is an induction, is not an absolute claim, nor do I make it with an assumption of 100% certainty. I would be perfectly willing to modify this claim if new evidence became available.

That is all fine and well but the issue that I have been trying to address has been that of evidence itself. It does little good to say that there is no evidence, or that there is evidence, if we consider different things to constitute “evidence.”

All I’m claiming is that based on the evidence that I’ve observed thus far, it is very likely that external entities are ones that can be detected by any impartial observer.

Do you dispute that conclusion?

I don’t dispute that your experiences and your own understanding of evidence have led you to this conclusion. I do dispute that your experience or understanding of evidence is objective or that you (or anyone) has established it as actually true.

Beyond that, I am not seeking to make any claims in this thread. The whole question, does God exist, rarely produces fruitful discussion. At least, not in the Internet discussions I’ve seen or participated in. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads