Calvin on the Sensus Divinitatis

[Ginkgo]

Hello again, Arising: sorry for the time away. I was on vacation. I'm back now, and pleased to be talking to you again.

When we left off, we were discussing the nature of belief. In short, you posed the following:

If this was the case then I'd expect you to be able to show me concrete evidence for your belief that your 'God' exists of the order of showing me the front door of your house when you say, "I believe that the front door of my house exists"

[By "this" here, you were referring to my statement that belief is not contrary to or absent evidence, but is rather involved with evidence.]

Here's the problem, Arising: the front door of my house is an object, and an object I happen to own, and of which I have full control. But God is not like that. There is indeed evidence for His existence, but it is not the sort of easy, comprehensive evidence one gets from looking at a controllable object. Really big and really complex things, such as say the universe, the atomic level or even consciousness are not possible to describe comprehensively. That is not to say that we can know nothing about them, but that in knowing them we know something genuine but only partial.

Take the universe, for example. Scientists tell us it's infinite. But they don't know. They have not tested it, because by definition they couldn't. But they know our part of the universe, and they extrapolate to the rest, and then beyond that they simply guess or imagine, or use mathematical projection to estimate that which they cannot possibly measure: you can't "measure" infinity.

God's like that. He's a whole lot bigger than me, and He is in charge, not I. How much of Him I can know is determined both by the size of my brain and by His self-revelation. But I cannot manipulate him with my mind like I can manipulate an object. Yet partial knowledge, as in the case of the universe, is not ignorance, not mere guessing or superstition. Thus "belief" in God means knowing Him in part, to the extent that human beings are capable, and "belief" or "faith" comes in because of my littleness, not His insufficiency.

Belief is something scientists use all the time; so do ordinary people. You "believe" you can understand my message. You "believe" your spouse is reliable. You "believe" your money will still be in your bank account when you use your credit card. You "believe" an airplane will stay up in the air with you in it... In a thousand ways, every day, we all use "belief." And there is nothing irrational in you doing so.

So my question would be, "Why would anyone deny someone else a right to use [this sort of] belief, since we all do it all the time?"

I think there is a misunderstanding of the nature of science and belief.

The thinking at the moment is that the universe is flat. By this I mean that every point in the universe is accelerating away at an ever increasing rate. Saying the universe is infinite is a belief based on mathematical possibilities, but it isn't based on any observation. In other words, the scientific thinking is settled on the flat universe theory because it is backed up by observations. Brian Schmidt (an Austrtalian) won the Nobel prize in Physics, for making this discovery.

There are no prizes in physics for beliefs. All that science says at the moment is that his theory of a flat universe is backed up by observation. Things may well change in the future, but it is won't be a future based on a belief. Physics is NOT a belief system in the same way as religion is a belief system. In my opinion I think that this needs to be made abundantly clear.

For anything to be considered science it must contain a working hypothesis and from this we might be able to construct a theory. When you hear people on the street say that science,"is just a theory" it demonstrates a complete misunderstand of the scientific process. A scientific theory is actually the highest achievement of science.

I think it is worth repeating that scientific theories are much more than observations and the belief attached to these observations.They also need the attachment of a working hypothesis and theory. A belief system based on observations lacks these two things.

[Immanuel Can]

For anything to be considered science it must contain a working hypothesis and from this we might be able to construct a theory. When you hear people on the street say that science,"is just a theory" it demonstrates a complete misunderstand of the scientific process. A scientific theory is actually the highest achievement of science.

I think it is worth repeating that scientific theories are much more than observations and the belief attached to these observations.They also need the attachment of a working hypothesis and theory. A belief system based on observations lacks these two things.

Nobody here is denigrating science, Ginko, nor is anyone saying that a hypothesis or theory or belief that is not coupled to evidence is a good one. But hypotheses are guesses made prior to testing, and theories are statement about cases that are relevantly similar to known or tested cases. Yet not all cases have been tested before a theory is advanced; were that necessary, science would never be able to draw any conclusions, because the set-of-all-cases is usually too large to test, except in reference to phenomena that are very limited in numerical scope.

No belief lacks a theory or hypothesis; it just may have a weak or bad one, or on the other hand a strong or good one. A theory is, itself, always a belief about something. Now, it certainly ought not to be a random belief, not a non-evidence-based belief, and not an irrational belief (if it is any of those, it's simply a *bad* belief) but it's certainly a belief.

The real point is very simple: a reasonable theory plus good evidence warrants belief...at least until that particular belief is disproved by a greater weight of evidence. Incherent theory plus insufficient evidence, or no evidence, warrants no belief at all -- either in science or in metaphysics. But "belief" is a universal human phenomenon in both.

And it bears repeating: no one is denigrating science here. It's a very good thing. But like all human knowledge, it's also quite impossible without belief. After all, don't you *believe* in the evidence science has presented to you? Of course you do. And why shouldn't you?

[uwot]

Happy to clarify.

Bit late Immanuel Can. I already did.

And in regards to the universe, I see no difference between your claim and mine: it's a hypothesis offered without conclusive proof, and yet is offered as a scientific opinion. Quite so. No problem there. We agree.

I didn't make any claim with regards to the universe, so I'm not clear what you think we agree on. The bit where we differ is where you said:

Take the universe, for example. Scientists tell us it's infinite.

To which I replied:

No they don't.

There is no such thing as 'scientific opinion'. It is true that scientists have opinions and beliefs, but as Ginkgo points out, science is not a belief system. Because science is empirical, there is very little about it that has conclusive proof, certainly not hypotheses. The closest science will claim to certainty is laws, as in Newton's law of universal gravitation or Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Laws just state what is seen to happen, they are rules that so far apply to every observed incidence of a particular event, but even they are subject to revision and refinement. Scientists for that reason do not 'believe' the laws are true, they just accept that there is no known phenomenon that contradicts it, but that that might change.

As for your ad hominem indictment of Theists as persons, it's not any kind of reasonable argument here.

I said:

...theists, who having no meaningful evidence for the existence of god, will not accept any evidence that he is not as they insist.

That is not an indictment of theists as persons. Anyone who identifies themselves as a theist, assuming they know what it means, is averring a belief in a god.

I happily admit that it is true in some cases: just as it is true that there are fanatics of all kinds, claiming all ideologies including Atheism.

Who said anything about fanatics?

But that does not suggest there's no such thing as a thinking person from any of these ideologies. Likewise Theists: some think, some try not to. What's the big deal? You're just describing a human tendency, not one that is unique to Theists. So damning a few radicals you happen to know does not tell us anything about rational Theism.

I don't happen to know any radicals, at least not that I'm aware of.

Your complaint about this also ducks the issue: what matters is that there are many instances in which the best we can do is get partial evidence plus rational belief, but not conclusive evidence. That's all that needs to be said in order to show that condemning a Theist for exercising "belief" is an absurd move. "Belief" is necessary. We all do it, we have to do it, and we're rational in doing it.

As I said; a scientist who believes their experiment is going to work has a completely different belief to someone who has a belief in something that no experiment could be devised to show the existence of. The belief the scientist has that the experiment will work may be what moves them to conduct it, but the belief has no bearing on the result, or if it does, peer review will expose it. Belief is ultimately irrelevant to science; by contrast, there would be no theism at all without belief.
Ginkgo, as before, you are quite right about 'hypothesis', 'theory' and 'belief', but I think seeing Immanuel Can's latest, it might be quicker to make some allowance for the vernacular. It's all in the context, dontcha know.

[Ginkgo]

And it bears repeating: no one is denigrating science here. It's a very good thing. But like all human knowledge, it's also quite impossible without belief. After all, don't you *believe* in the evidence science has presented to you? Of course you do. And why shouldn't you?

Fair enough. I shall consider myself told.

[uwot]

Doh! Not that much allowance, Gingko.

[FrankGSterleJr]

Picture a hypothetical alternative scene from the movie Look What’s Happened to Rosemary’s Baby, specifically one in which the devil is on top of a drugged Rosemary in order to impregnate her with Satan’s prophetic offspring.
“Oh, God ... This isn’t a dream—it’s really happening!”
“You bet it’s happening, baby,” Satan confirms to her smugly, for he perceives himself as the studly devil that many might attribute to such a powerful, feared entity.
Then in a second cartoon square (or whatever) above which it may read, “About thirty seconds later, Satan climaxes ... ,” Satan looks quite pleased with his performance.
Rosemary, however, looking up at him quite disappointedly says, “What? Is that it?!”

[uwot]

Why are you gloating, Frankie? What part did you play?

[thedoc]

Why are you gloating, Frankie? What part did you play?

He was on top of Rosemary being invisible, - they were both disappointed.

[QMan]

Excuse me butting in Arising, but it's me old mucker Immanuel Can talking bollocks again.

Take the universe, for example. Scientists tell us it's infinite.

No they don't. That the universe is infinite is an hypothesis, as is that it is finite. There are scientists of either persuasion that are trying to devise experiments that will lend support to one or other possibility, but no scientist 'tell us' the range of the universe.

Belief is something scientists use all the time;

You need to be clear about this. Most scientists have some belief about the efficacy of experiments they design. But they know that if the experiment fails to produce the expected results, they will have to amend, or dispense with, their belief. In this they differ from theists, who having no meaningful evidence for the existence of god, will not accept any evidence that he is not as they insist.

You "believe" you can understand my message.... In a thousand ways, every day, we all use "belief." And there is nothing irrational in you doing so.

So my question would be, "Why would anyone deny someone else a right to use [this sort of] belief, since we all do it all the time?"

I'm not sure I "believe" you can understand my message, but as above: you can believe what you will, but it is not the same [sort of] belief.

An incorrect description of what a scientist or engineer actually does and how they approach an experiment. As you might know, they conduct experiments to help them decide between different hypothesis, which ARE NOT beliefs that later on have to be dropped or modified. You have a primary(a null) and an alternate hypothesis, which are both equally valid and can both be determined with the desired level of statistical confidence. The experiment is run to decide which hypothesis is more likely to be correct. That conclusion about "correctness" then becomes the "tentative" belief of the scientist to go forward with. For example, the scientist beliefs that paint adheres to walls. S/he mixes in a new chemical in various proportions and evaluates whether paint adhesion is improved, the same, or worse. His belief that paint adheres to walls did not enter into the picture and does not have to be changed. What has changed is that the scientist now knows how to improve paint adhesion.

Who says theists have no meaningful evidence of God? They have historically accurate accounts of Christ and all the surrounding circumstances. There are solidly verified miracles even in modern times of which a single one establishes the reality of the supernatural. They are actively engaged in a daily and lifelong experiment of establishing a personal relationship with God that is promised to produce concrete and measurable results in their lives and the community. Just because you are prejudiced towards not wanting to conduct that experiment does not entitle you to claim that no concrete results can be obtained. Run the experiment and then start talking.

Also, you place way too much importance on science and its methodologies. Science after all is no more than a way of categorizing and cataloguing of a large physical inventory. It's a warehousing exercise of materials, observations that we happen to find around us. Your assertion that this physical inventory just happens to be there has a much lower probability than the theists view of an active creation. At least the theist has some probable cause and proof, while you have none. Btw, let me know if you want to become a scientist and run the experiment to quantify God's influence in this world and your life. I am willing to help you design it and with the statistical evaluation. See my previous append on page 8 of this thread.

[Ginkgo]

Excuse me butting in Arising, but it's me old mucker Immanuel Can talking bollocks again.

Take the universe, for example. Scientists tell us it's infinite.

No they don't. That the universe is infinite is an hypothesis, as is that it is finite. There are scientists of either persuasion that are trying to devise experiments that will lend support to one or other possibility, but no scientist 'tell us' the range of the universe.

Belief is something scientists use all the time;

You need to be clear about this. Most scientists have some belief about the efficacy of experiments they design. But they know that if the experiment fails to produce the expected results, they will have to amend, or dispense with, their belief. In this they differ from theists, who having no meaningful evidence for the existence of god, will not accept any evidence that he is not as they insist.

You "believe" you can understand my message.... In a thousand ways, every day, we all use "belief." And there is nothing irrational in you doing so.

So my question would be, "Why would anyone deny someone else a right to use [this sort of] belief, since we all do it all the time?"

I'm not sure I "believe" you can understand my message, but as above: you can believe what you will, but it is not the same [sort of] belief.

An incorrect description of what a scientist or engineer actually does and how they approach an experiment. As you might know, they conduct experiments to help them decide between different hypothesis, which ARE NOT beliefs that later on have to be dropped or modified. You have a primary and a null (alternate) hypothesis, which are both equally valid and can both be determined with the desired level of statistical confidence. The experiment is run to decide which hypothesis is more likely to be correct. That conclusion about "correctness" then becomes the "tentative" belief of the scientist to go forward with. For example, the scientist beliefs that paint adheres to walls. S/he mixes in a new chemical in various proportions and evaluates whether paint adhesion is improved, the same, or worse. His belief that paint adheres to walls did not enter into the picture and does not have to be changed. What has changed is that the scientist now knows how to improve paint adhesion.

Who says theists have no meaningful evidence of God? They have historically accurate accounts of Christ and all the surrounding circumstances. There are solidly verified miracles even in modern times of which a single one establishes the reality of the supernatural. They are actively engaged in a daily and lifelong experiment of establishing a personal relationship with God that is promised to produce concrete and measurable results in their lives and the community. Just because you are prejudiced towards not wanting to conduct that experiment does not entitle you to claim that no concrete results can be obtained. Run the experiment and then start talking.

Also, you place way too much importance on science and its methodologies. Science after all is no more than a way of categorizing and cataloguing of a large physical inventory. It's a warehousing exercise of materials, observations that we happen to find around us. Your assertion that this physical inventory just happens to be there has a much lower probability than the theists view of an active creation. At least the theist has some probable cause and proof, while you have none. Btw, let me know if you want to become a scientist and run the experiment to quantify God's influence in this world and your life. I am willing to help you design it and with the statistical evaluation. See my previous append on page 8 of this thread.

To be perfectly honest I couldn't disagree more. As far as a null hypothesis is concerned you are promoting- if not one, then it must be the other. That's not how physics works. Social science tries to encapsulate the complexity of empiricism and one cannot ignore the role of the individual in terms of interpreting events. Having said this, I am not saying that such events are not accurate. But as far as physics is concerned you are taking the extra step that cannot be justified. It may well be justified by other means, but that's a different story.

[QMan]

To be perfectly honest I couldn't disagree more. As far as a null hypothesis is concerned you are promoting- if not one, then it must be the other. That's not how physics works. Social science tries to encapsulate the complexity of empiricism and one cannot ignore the role of the individual in terms of interpreting events. Having said this, I am not saying that such events are not accurate. But as far as physics is concerned you are taking the extra step that cannot be justified. It may well be justified by other means, but that's a different story.

Actually, physics, engineering, science (including social sciences) works exactly by conducting experiments where you test what influence a given variable, e.g., pressure, temperature, time, psychological exposure, peer pressure, good vs bad example, perception of God existing vs. perception of not existing, improved new drug vs. old drug, placebo, etc. has on the property being investigated. The result(s), conclusion(s), for the test(s), FOR EFFICIENT EXPERIMENTATION, is ALWAYS obtained by making a decision about the correctness of either the null or alternate hypothesis for each variable involved (the hypothesis will differ for each variable, depending on the nature of the variable). The response to the test, which is the property thought to be influenced by the variables, could be whatever the scientist/engineer or corporate laboratory wants to improve upon, e.g., strength of steel, greater spectroscopic sensitivity, reducing acid reflux, improving resilience to peer pressure, improving a climate of personal responsibility and morality in the classroom or public sphere, gas mileage, carbon emission etc.. Without that, there is no physic and science except maybe in a highly inefficient, and slow manner. Most often there can be many variables that are known to, or are presumed to, simultaneously influence a single property, or many properties, under investigation, which requires the use of highly complex multivariate matrix experiments. Here is an excellent practical handbook and reference on that.

http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Experim ... 214&sr=1-1

All of these, including for social sciences, are empirical in nature. For the social science experiment, (and physical experiment) complexity is addressed equally by controlling the scope of the experiment by deciding how large the test matrix should be (how many variables should be included) and by conducting separate groups of experiments to obtain the overall picture. This also takes care of your concern about an individual's interpretation of events, which is simply assigned to one or several variables, which will additionally determine the form of the outcome.

[Ginkgo]

To be perfectly honest I couldn't disagree more. As far as a null hypothesis is concerned you are promoting- if not one, then it must be the other. That's not how physics works. Social science tries to encapsulate the complexity of empiricism and one cannot ignore the role of the individual in terms of interpreting events. Having said this, I am not saying that such events are not accurate. But as far as physics is concerned you are taking the extra step that cannot be justified. It may well be justified by other means, but that's a different story.

Actually, physics, engineering, science (including social sciences) works exactly by conducting experiments where you test what influence a given variable, e.g., pressure, temperature, time, psychological exposure, peer pressure, good vs bad example, perception of God existing vs. perception of not existing, improved new drug vs. old drug, placebo, etc. has on the property being investigated. The result(s), conclusion(s), for the test(s), FOR EFFICIENT EXPERIMENTATION, is ALWAYS obtained by making a decision about the correctness of either the null or alternate hypothesis for each variable involved (the hypothesis will differ for each variable, depending on the nature of the variable). The response to the test, which is the property thought to be influenced by the variables, could be whatever the scientist/engineer or corporate laboratory wants to improve upon, e.g., strength of steel, greater spectroscopic sensitivity, reducing acid reflux, improving resilience to peer pressure, improving a climate of personal responsibility and morality in the classroom or public sphere, gas mileage, carbon emission etc.. Without that, there is no physic and science except maybe in a highly inefficient, and slow manner. Most often there can be many variables that are known to, or are presumed to, simultaneously influence a single property, or many properties, under investigation, which requires the use of highly complex multivariate matrix experiments. Here is an excellent practical handbook and reference on that.

http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Experim ... 214&sr=1-1

All of these, including for social sciences, are empirical in nature. For the social science experiment, (and physical experiment) complexity is addressed equally by controlling the scope of the experiment by deciding how large the test matrix should be (how many variables should be included) and by conducting separate groups of experiments to obtain the overall picture. This also takes care of your concern about an individual's interpretation of events, which is simply assigned to one or several variables, which will additionally determine the form of the outcome.

The problem is that when the null hypothesis does then job there is no need to consider any alternatives. It does the job too well. If physics relied exclusively on the null hypothesis then we would have never moved from Newton to Einstein to quantum mechanics. The inadequacy of the null hypothesis becomes evident in physics when there is a gap created in our understanding.

Sure, as you say it works for such things as gas mileage and carbon emissions. But it won't do the job, for example, when we consider absolute time and special relativity. It WON'T work IN SCIENTIFIC TERMS for God's existence versus his non-existence.But it might work in other terms such as the Ontological argument or Cosmological argument.

I think we need to keep metaphysics and science as distinct categories.

[QMan]

The problem is that when the null hypothesis does then job there is no need to consider any alternatives. It does the job too well. If physics relied exclusively on the null hypothesis then we would have never moved from Newton to Einstein to quantum mechanics. The inadequacy of the null hypothesis becomes evident in physics when there is a gap created in our understanding.

Sure, as you say it works for such things as gas mileage and carbon emissions. But it won't do the job, for example, when we consider absolute time and special relativity. It WON'T work IN SCIENTIFIC TERMS for God's existence versus his non-existence.But it might work in other terms such as the Ontological argument or Cosmological argument.

I think we need to keep metaphysics and science as distinct categories.

Ginko, please don't get fixated on the terminology "null hypothesis". It is simply part of the statistical tool set that all competent scientists (in all fields) use routinely to advance their work. You are simply incorrect in claiming that it would interfere with science, it does the exact opposite and makes ALL scientific enquiry much more efficient. Newton to Einstein to Quantum mechanics would have progressed faster, the exact opposite to what you suggest. If you wanted to get a job today in a science or engineering field you would loose out to a candidate skilled in these techniques. They greatly increase speed of product development and arriving at all scientific and engineering conclusions. Please read up on it a little. It CAN BE USED very effectively in the social sciences as well along the lines I have outlined above INCLUDING THE GOD question. You simply do not know how to use it, while I do. If you disagree with that it shows you are not informed and familiar enough with that basic statistical methodology. If you insist on staying misinformed, than this discussion can, unfortunately like most in these fora, never progress past the stage of an idle exchange of spurious opinions for the sake of whiling away some time.

If IC does not do so before me, because he is in the same boat, then I will soon change my name to Don Quixote because it is simply becoming an exercise in fighting windmills .

[Ginkgo]

Ginko, please don't get fixated on the terminology "null hypothesis". It is simply part of the statistical tool set that all competent scientists (in all fields) use routinely to advance their work. You are simply incorrect in claiming that it would interfere with science, it does the exact opposite and makes ALL scientific enquiry much more efficient. Newton to Einstein to Quantum mechanics would have progressed faster, the exact opposite to what you suggest.

Again, I completely disagree with this. The history of our solar system; firstly in relation to Newton's Universal Law of gravitation and then Einsteins relativity may prove of interest.

If you wanted to get a job today in a science or engineering field you would loose out to a candidate skilled in these techniques. They greatly increase speed of product development and arriving at all scientific and engineering conclusions. Please read up on it a little. It CAN BE USED very effectively in the social sciences as well along the lines I have outlined above INCLUDING THE GOD question. You simply do not know how to use it, while I do.

This is true, I have no training in engineering, but what my training has done is allow me to recognize the fallacy of an argument from authority when I see it. I don't doubt you are the authority when it comes to engineering and possibly God, but experts can be wrong. I would rather stick to how good or bad the arguments are, if that is Ok.

If you disagree with that it shows you are not informed and familiar enough with that basic statistical methodology. If you insist on staying misinformed, than this discussion can, unfortunately like most in these fora, never progress past the stage of an idle exchange of spurious opinions for the sake of whiling away some time.

Again, I see this as another fallacy,viz. an argument from personal incredulity. If possible I would like to stick to the actual arguments. Is this ok with you?

[uwot]

You have a primary and a null (alternate) hypothesis, which are both equally valid and can both be determined with the desired level of statistical confidence.

As Ginkgo has pointed out: it's not that simple.

Who says theists have no meaningful evidence of God? They have historically accurate accounts of Christ and all the surrounding circumstances.

What do you mean by 'historically accurate'? Are there any sources of information about Jesus other than the four gospels, which frequently contradict each other, and whatever gnostic accounts you think support your argument? Are there any writings of other events by any of the above that establish their credentials as reliable historians?

There are solidly verified miracles even in modern times of which a single one establishes the reality of the supernatural.

If one is all it takes, then give it your best shot. Which solidly verified miracle of modern times do you think is most likely to persuade the likes of me?

They are actively engaged in a daily and lifelong experiment of establishing a personal relationship with God that is promised to produce concrete and measurable results in their lives and the community.

You mean they: "have a primary and a null (alternate) hypothesis, which are both equally valid and can both be determined with the desired level of statistical confidence." What percentage of 'experimenters' come to accept the equally valid null hypothesis. Do they contribute to your statistical confidence?

Just because you are prejudiced towards not wanting to conduct that experiment does not entitle you to claim that no concrete results can be obtained. Run the experiment and then start talking.

How can you tell whether or not I have run the experiment?

Also, you place way too much importance on science and its methodologies.

I think I'm on record as saying that I do not think science has a methodology. If not, I'll say it now. It doesn't matter how you arrive at an hypothesis, if it fails to make any difference in the material world, it is metaphysics. It may be true, but it isn't science.

Science after all is no more than a way of categorizing and cataloguing of a large physical inventory.

If science were no more than that, then god would definitely have no part in it.

It's a warehousing exercise of materials, observations that we happen to find around us.

That is more or less what Kuhn called 'normal science'. There's more to it.

Your assertion that this physical inventory just happens to be there has a much lower probability than the theists view of an active creation.

Where did I make any such assertion?

At least the theist has some probable cause and proof, while you have none.

What the theist has is a story, which although conceivably true, it is absurd to describe as probable and only the breathtakingly credulous could accept as proven.

Btw, let me know if you want to become a scientist and run the experiment to quantify God's influence in this world and your life. I am willing to help you design it and with the statistical evaluation. See my previous append on page 8 of this thread.

That's very generous of you. If it ever happens, I'll look you up. In the meantime, if you could stick to what your co-contributors have actually said, we could save a bit of time.