theist in a foxhole

[uwot]

One can approach the evidence to prove, or with an inclination to disprove.

Which pretty much defines confirmation bias. How do you decide, for instance, whether a particular piece of 'evidence' supports one metaphysical possibility rather than any of an effectively infinite range?

[Immanuel Can]

Which pretty much defines confirmation bias. How do you decide, for instance, whether a particular piece of 'evidence' supports one metaphysical possibility rather than any of an effectively infinite range?

A salient point. Well said. That's an eventuality we all have to guard against.

But it seems to me that "confirmation" can only happen if we take a biased view at the start. So, for example, if we're studying quantity surveying, we might have no particular view of that discipline in advance, and we would be less susceptible confirmation bias. If, on the other hand, somebody had told us that "Quantity surveying is bunk," then we would have to guard against the inclination to dismiss it outright or to sift the evidence only to confirm that quantity surveying was indeed unreliable.

But I think we all have some view of the existence or non-existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, confirmation bias is a worry on all sides. And this is especially bad if one has already been soaking in propaganda for one side or the other, as many people have been doing before they even open the question. Confirmation bias is a worry.

So what is to be done? I can see no way but that we check our biases at the door, as best we can, stay open to what the evidence may say, and try our best not to manipulate it unjustly one way or the other. It can help to read books on both sides of an equation. It can help to talk to different sorts of people, and have conversations of all kinds relevant to multiple perspectives; but nothing but sincerity and extreme alertness will allow us to view the issue equitably. Even then, it's a constant struggle -- one in which we sometimes fall off one side of the issue, and sometimes off the other: but we hope for a general straightness in our admittedly wobbly path.

However imperfect that method may be, the only alternative to it is simply to give up the search for balanced and honest any knowledge of any kind. For if knowledge is nothing other than the confirmation of prejudices, and our prejudices are accidents we cannot control, then no certainty of knowledge is possible.

And that would be as true in science as in metaphysics.

[thedoc]

Which pretty much defines confirmation bias. How do you decide, for instance, whether a particular piece of 'evidence' supports one metaphysical possibility rather than any of an effectively infinite range?

A salient point. Well said. That's an eventuality we all have to guard against.

But it seems to me that "confirmation" can only happen if we take a biased view at the start. So, for example, if we're studying quantity surveying, we might have no particular view of that discipline in advance, and we would be less susceptible confirmation bias. If, on the other hand, somebody had told us that "Quantity surveying is bunk," then we would have to guard against the inclination to dismiss it outright or to sift the evidence only to confirm that quantity surveying was indeed unreliable.

But I think we all have some view of the existence or non-existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, confirmation bias is a worry on all sides. And this is especially bad if one has already been soaking in propaganda for one side or the other, as many people have been doing before they even open the question. Confirmation bias is a worry.

So what is to be done? I can see no way but that we check our biases at the door, as best we can, stay open to what the evidence may say, and try our best not to manipulate it unjustly one way or the other. It can help to read books on both sides of an equation. It can help to talk to different sorts of people, and have conversations of all kinds relevant to multiple perspectives; but nothing but sincerity and extreme alertness will allow us to view the issue equitably. Even then, it's a constant struggle -- one in which we sometimes fall off one side of the issue, and sometimes off the other: but we hope for a general straightness in our admittedly wobbly path.

However imperfect that method may be, the only alternative to it is simply to give up the search for balanced and honest any knowledge of any kind. For if knowledge is nothing other than the confirmation of prejudices, and our prejudices are accidents we cannot control, then no certainty of knowledge is possible.

And that would be as true in science as in metaphysics.

I agree, and this is one of the reasons that I am looking (not very hard) for the first accounts of humans describing God. It's a bit like looking for the evidence on any subject, it's always best to be able to access the raw data, and draw your own conclusions. Many years ago I took a college level statistics course for my teaching certification, and at the beginning of the class the professor said, "Give a good statistician the raw data, and he will prove anything you want.", meaning that the data can be selected and biased in whatever direction the person paying for the research wants.

[uwot]

For if knowledge is nothing other than the confirmation of prejudices, and our prejudices are accidents we cannot control, then no certainty of knowledge is possible.

And that would be as true in science as in metaphysics.

This is where you and I differ. Science is simply not about anyone's prejudices. It is unquestionably true that scientists do have agendas, and there are many instances of people allowing their interpretation to be flavoured by what they, or the people employing them, wish were the case. As thedoc points out, there's lies, damned lies and statistics. However, there are always other scientists with conflicting interests who will challenge them; ultimately ones belief does not affect how the world behaves (some spectacularly outre interpretations of QM notwithstanding). Regardless of whether there is a god, a spaghetti monster or any causative agency you care to fancy, there is no compelling evidence that experimental data is ever influenced by belief.
There is a categorical difference between data and analysis thereof-analysis does not change the way the world behaves. A Christian and an atheist can do exactly the same experiment and observe exactly the same phenomenon, that ones interprets it as an act of god has no effect on the data. Science is the discovery and manipulation of phenomena. Metaphysics is explanation. This is the bit that most people fail to understand, yourself included: the explanation does not affect the phenomenon. The explanation is not science.

[Arising_uk]

1. If we can oblige God to show up and do parlor tricks for skeptics, then you're saying we'll have reason believe He's real? ...

Nope, just that when you are in contact the next time give us a ring so we can say hello or even pop-round to meet 'him'.

2. If we can't, we won't?

Does either alternative sound even remotely reasonable to anyone?

It's pretty much how ontological claims are settled.

I would even go so far as to suggest that if the Supreme Being DID do such a thing it would give us at least one good reason for NOT thinking Him to be the Supreme Being at all. For presuming His existence, could a real God be compelled to a command performance for the satisfaction of cynics?

That's a nice out.

And should he manifest himself to appease those who, by their own confession, have nothing but contempt for His very name, and for anyone who actually reveres Him?

Why does the skeptic have to be contemptuous?

Should he, then, Who is said to be the Lord of the Universe, dance to their tune?

Then 'it' and you shouldn't be too bothered that there are atheists.

I'm not seeing why we'd be reasonable to think so.

Because you are making ontological claims and it's reasonable to produce evidence for such things if they exist.

[Arising_uk]

... In short, if you say "produce him" and the Christian points to the Bible, they've answered your challenge. ...

Eh! But the Bible was knocked-up many centuries later by the priests of the HRE and they were selective in their choices.

[Immanuel Can]

This is where you and I differ. Science is simply not about anyone's prejudices.

You completely misread me, or I completely misspoke...one or the other.

I never said what you attribute to me here. I said "if," postulating a situation I don't hold to exist. I was arguing that the bad logic of people who believe prejudices are all there is would lead them to this conclusion -- NOT that I wanted to go to that conclusion myself. In fact, I'm on the other side.

A suggestion, if you will be so gracious as to indulge me: I have discovered that some cynics find themselves drawn to assume that because I'm a Theist I hold all of the opinions that they have been told Theists hold, and then to attribute them to me regardless of what I actually say. For example, many Atheists find it convenient to suppose Theism is definitionally opposed to science. It's not even remotely true, but they suppose it anyway, because it makes arguing work a whole lot better for them if they can lay exclusive claim, and force the opposition to an untenable anti-intellectualism. Those who read their writings imbibe their bias without realizing it's a bias; they think it's some sort of truism. But let me assure you, it's not.

That may not be your case, but it might be.

No offense taken, of course. But if we're going to have a sincere conversation you may have to set aside some of those preconceptions if you currently hold them. Theists are of different kinds, and a great many are very far from the position you attribute erroneously to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Why does the skeptic have to be contemptuous?

He doesn't have to be. But many routinely choose to be. For example, they choose to use the impersonal pronoun for God ("it") in the hopes of inflaming discussion rather than advancing it. It's a mere rhetorical tactic, and when it appears it usually signals the end of reason.

Then 'it' and you shouldn't be too bothered that there are atheists.

There's no bother. (Except for to the Atheist, if God is truthful and Theist are right, of course.) Atheists often mistake the earnestness of Theists for some sort of pique, or worse, some sort of selfish intent to win an argument: in point of fact, in some cases it's an earnest concern for (what the Theist sincerely believes) is the welfare of the Atheist's soul -- which, oddly enough, is a thing for which the Atheist often takes no care, and in fact which the Atheist himself does not even believe he possesses...

No bother for us. We expect it. After all, we believe in free conscience and the right of people to be wrong if they so desire. But we would wish them a better situation than they wish on themselves, sometimes.

[uwot]

Perhaps this is the bit I misread:

But as I suggested in the case of Newton in my earlier message, one can approach evidence in different frames of mind. One can approach the evidence to prove, or with an inclination to disprove. Once can even approach it with indifference. In the first case, one is open to the possibility of confirmation; in the second, one is perhaps less open or even closed altogether; in the third, one is in no frame of mind even to recognize the evidence AS evidence.

Now, if seeking the evidence for the existence of God is the task in hand, in which of the three modes above shall we approach the task? Are we seeking and hoping to know? Are we looking to disprove or dismiss at all costs? Or are we starting with the assumption that no evidence exists anyway, so there's nothing to see?

It makes all the difference to the question of what can be found.

The philosophers' way of saying this is that we must always start from the appropriate epistemological perspective for the matter in question, or it can distort what we conceive to be knowledge in that realm...

So what epistemological perspective do you recommend for seeking evidence of god? How will it affect what we find?

[Wyman]

Why does the skeptic have to be contemptuous?

He doesn't have to be. But many routinely choose to be. For example, they choose to use the impersonal pronoun for God ("it") in the hopes of inflaming discussion rather than advancing it. It's a mere rhetorical tactic, and when it appears it usually signals the end of reason.

Then 'it' and you shouldn't be too bothered that there are atheists.

There's no bother. (Except for to the Atheist, if God is truthful and Theist are right, of course.) Atheists often mistake the earnestness of Theists for some sort of pique, or worse, some sort of selfish intent to win an argument: in point of fact, in some cases it's an earnest concern for (what the Theist sincerely believes) is the welfare of the Atheist's soul -- which, oddly enough, is a thing for which the Atheist often takes no care, and in fact which the Atheist himself does not even believe he possesses...

No bother for us. We expect it. After all, we believe in free conscience and the right of people to be wrong if they so desire. But we would wish them a better situation than they wish on themselves, sometimes.

in some cases it's an earnest concern for (what the Theist sincerely believes) is the welfare of the Atheist's soul -- which, oddly enough, is a thing for which the Atheist often takes no care, and in fact which the Atheist himself does not even believe he possesses...

Well that really pisses people off. If you want a good conversation with an atheist, I'd avoid that.

[thedoc]

in some cases it's an earnest concern for (what the Theist sincerely believes) is the welfare of the Atheist's soul -- which, oddly enough, is a thing for which the Atheist often takes no care, and in fact which the Atheist himself does not even believe he possesses...

Well that really pisses people off. If you want a good conversation with an atheist, I'd avoid that.

If a good conversation is what is desired, the first step is to determine what the other person actually believes and not to make assumptions. If the person of either persuasion is reasonable, they will be glad to enlighten you about their beliefs, if they take offence at even being asked, a good conversation is probably not possible.

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps this is the bit I misread...

All of it? Okay, if you say so...

So what epistemological perspective do you recommend for seeking evidence of god? How will it affect what we find?

Personally, I would suggest an openness to the evidence, rather than closed-mindedness or ignorance of any evidence, the other two alternatives I mentioned...but I suppose people are free to choose their starting point. However, my one caution would be that the latter two options preclude finding anything, as I'm sure anyone can see.

[Immanuel Can]

Well that really pisses people off. If you want a good conversation with an atheist, I'd avoid that.

What? Caring about people "pisses them off?" It's hard to see why it should, although of course they're free to choose their reaction. Yet in that they have a freedom the Theist does not. He's still bound to be concerned, and required by even the minimal standard of ethics to persist.

After all, what kind of a person is so callous that merely to preserve the peace (or worse, to ingratiate himself to the public) he is content to feign ignorance of his Creator and Saviour, conceal the way to relationship with God, and thus mildly to watch people (both figuratively and literally) "go to Hell"?

I hope you don't mind if that's not me.

[uwot]

Perhaps this is the bit I misread...

All of it? Okay, if you say so...

I'll narrow it down, then:

One can approach the evidence to prove, or with an inclination to disprove. Once can even approach it with indifference. In the first case, one is open to the possibility of confirmation; in the second, one is perhaps less open or even closed altogether; in the third, one is in no frame of mind even to recognize the evidence AS evidence.

What you still don't understand is that you can take anything as evidence for a metaphysical belief. You have not, and I would suggest cannot provide a single piece of evidence that is particular to your version of a transcendent being, 'God' as you choose to call it (that is not deliberately provocative, it is how it is) that could not be claimed as evidence by any sincerely religious person of any persuasion, or any crank, nor even out and out nut job. You don't have any evidence for your god; you simply interpret whatever you perceive as evidence for something imperceptible. That is entirely your prerogative, but do you not understand the irony?

So what epistemological perspective do you recommend for seeking evidence of god? How will it affect what we find?

Personally, I would suggest an openness to the evidence, rather than closed-mindedness or ignorance of any evidence, the other two alternatives I mentioned...but I suppose people are free to choose their starting point. However, my one caution would be that the latter two options preclude finding anything, as I'm sure anyone can see.

You are at best disingenuous: having an "openness to the evidence" is very different to being foolish enough to think that any phenomenon is evidence of a non-phenomenolgical entity.

[marjoram_blues]

Well that really pisses people off. If you want a good conversation with an atheist, I'd avoid that.

What? Caring about people "pisses them off?"
After all, what kind of a person is so callous that merely to preserve the peace (or worse, to ingratiate himself to the public) he is content to feign ignorance of his Creator and Saviour, conceal the way to relationship with God, and thus mildly to watch people (both figuratively and literally) "go to Hell"?

Icy is not caring in his obsessive 'interest' to save souls.
Icy does not care that his desire to 'help' a vulnerable dying non-believer is about domination of a person against that person's will.
Icy is a religious agent who needs to advance his own purpose by use of psychological manipulation.
Right from his Introduction, he has played with words and minds to achieve his aims. Remember, he can't... but 'you know the rest..
... 'Immanuel/Jesus Can' ?

I don't care if this is seen as an attack on the man.
He 'attacks' others in so many subtle ways, it is unbelievable. Ignoring some 'salient points' and questions whilst praising and using superficial charm on others - anything to establish his authority.

The fact that he would inflict himself and his unwanted beliefs on a dying non-believer and call it 'caring' - well, it sickens me beyond belief. This is nothing more that mental and psychological abuse.