by bohm 139 Replies latest jw friends
Essan: One thing - you wrote: "It's interesting that you say you have never met an atheist who absolutely denies God. I'd suggest that you probably have, even in this thread and have even praised their posts."
I think it is most fair to test that:
If anyone abselutely, with 100% certainty, deny even the possibility of God existing, please stand up!
Hi Bohm :)
You said: "2) The word believe, as in "I believe in X", can carry the meaning "i think X is true with high probability".... For example, if a scientist (thestic, non-theistic...) say: "I believe in the many-world hypothesis" or "I believe gene XZV-1017b has an important role in understanding how HIV defeat the immune system", is it then entirely plausible he use "believe" in the sence above?"
Yes, and the context and his attending statements would demonstrate it this were so, IMO. But that's not the whole story. Even when probability can be reliably established, to move to the statement that "I believe" is to strengthen what is still only a possibility and "side" with it. Probability does not establish or directly relate to fully proven "fact" therefore it takes an injection of "faith" on the part of the "believer" and the operation of some gap-bridging personal choice that itself is not required or warranted by the data. That is why we say "I believe". Probability does not require belief. We volunteer belief because we want to. This is little different to Theistic "belief". An agnostic who is able to reliably calculate the probability of something states "The probability of X is Y" - he would not add "belief" because belief is not warranted. Look at the sentence you wrote: "i think X is true/with high probability " [in the past you have said believe rather than think]. There are two elements to it, one is scientific the other personal. The probability (if able to be calculated accurately) is scientific, the voluntary gap-bridging is not.
You said: "There are statements in this world where we can talk about their probabilities being high or low, and there are statements where we cannot. A nd "God does not exist" fit the later category.
Yes, for now, we can't even come close to accurately calculating that probability, therefore we can't legitimately speak of it's improbability. To do so just reveals personal bias, belief, preference. The truth is we don't know and our unknowing in absolute.
Bohm you said: "I think it is most fair to test that"
I already did, but there has been no reply as yet. I asked Caedes to assign a probability - his opinion - of the existence of three things he mentioned and insisted must be accounted as equally likely: Santa, God and the Easter Bunny. If you go back and read his posts I think it would be reasonable to conclude that he apparently assigns zero possibility to the existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny. If this is not so, he can correct this misapprehension.
But let's look at a few statements, Regarding Santa, Easter Bunnies and Co, he said, "I reject the existence of any of them", "Does it take faith to state that santa claus doesn't exist... neither does my rejection of the existence of god/s"
So if God = Santa and Easter Bunny, and Santa and Easter Bunny = Impossible, then God = Impossible.
If this is Caedes position, then this is an absolute unreserved denial of the possibility of God's existence. Do you agree?
As I said, many atheists hold such position but don't want to openly do what you just asked, which is stand up and honesty be counted for holding this belief, because they know it is unwarranted and opens them up to accusation of holding belief, just as Theists do.
Essan:
For example, if a scientist (thestic, non-theistic...) say: "I believe in the many-world hypothesis" or "I believe gene XZV-1017b has an important role in understanding how HIV defeat the immune system", is it then entirely plausible he use "believe" in the sence above?"
Yes, and the context and his attending statements would demonstrate it this were so, IMO. But that's not the whole story. Even when probability can be reliably established, to move to the statement that "I believe" is to strengthen what is still only a possibility and "side" with it.
I want to break down your response in parts so lets see what you can agree with:
1) The scientists above - assuming he had made some field work to back up his statement - is using proper english, and he use believe in the sence of "there is a high probability". Your "yes" seem to imply you agree with me here.
2) The scientists has not in any way established the numerical value of that probabilty; how could he?
If you answer yes to the above, it would seem it is possible to use "believe" as in "i think there is a high probability" even when one does not have a reliable estimate of that probability, right?
Essan: Well, I see your point. Caedes posts could certainly be read to imply what you are saying. But i think it is up to him to come out and answer the question directly. If he answer yes, i disagree with him and you have proven your point.
Hi Bohm,
You said: "1) The scientists above - assuming he had made some field work to back up his statement - is using proper english, and he use believe in the sence of "there is a high probability". Your "yes" seem to imply you agree with me here.
2) The scientists has not in any way established the numerical value of that probabilty; how could he?"
Regarding 1, my 'yes' was qualified. Perhaps it would be more clear to say 'no' and qualify that. If a scientist says something to the effect of "I believe" then he may be indicating that as far as he is concerned " there is a high probability" - but unfortunately that is not all he is doing. He is also, as I said earlier, strengthening probability beyond what the data warrants. He is taking a leap, choosing a "side", exercising a degree of faith - literally expressing a "belief". It's based on data, but goes beyond it. This is not strictly scientific IMO. Hypotheses and theories are scientific, "beliefs" aren't. If he knows something is probable based on accurately calculated probability, then that is all the data allows him to say. If he says "I believe X is true to high degree of probability, then he reveals that he has faith based belief, because it leaps the gap left by the probability, to a conclusion: "I believe X is true". Actually, X is not proven "true", it's proven probable, and the scientist has gone too far. This happens all the time. But I am talking here about cases in which probability can be measured.
Regarding 1, if a scientist has not established an accurate numerical value of a probability, then he has not calculated probability (either because he didn't bother or because it can't be done) in which case he has no business referencing probability at all, and all such claims of things being "almost certain", "highly probable" etc. are bogus. They're mere beliefs, preferences and personal opinions masquerading as authoritative data driven conclusions.
Regarding Caedes comments: they were pretty explicit, I'm sure you'll agree. It's not really that they "could be read" to "imply". How else could they be read? They were clear, IMO. If that is somehow not what he meant then he expressed himself incredibly poorly. So if he answers "No" then the contradiction with his previous statements will also have to be explained. Or are you prepared to ignore previous comments as irrelevant if an Atheist recants outright denial under pressure? :)
Essan:
Now its much clearer. As i understand you, you have two objections to our scientist from before:
1) When one say: "I believe in ...", one is taking a leap of faith.
Like you said before, one cannot know anything for certain. To use an extreme example, one cannot know with 100% certainty santa does not exist. Therefore, saying: "I believe there is no Santa" is taking a leap of faith (allbeit a small one, but nevertheless!) and strictly speaking not scientific. Am i understanding you correctly here?
2) Your second point is with regard to when a scientist can make statements regarding probabilities. You write:
if a scientist has not established an accurate numerical value of a probability, then he has not calculated probability (either because he didn't bother or because it can't be done) in which case he has no business referencing probability and all such claims of things being "almost certain", "highly probably" etc. are fraudulent.
I would like to think i have quite a good grasp of probability theory, so this is a somewhat surprising statement since it would seem to limit the scope of probability theory quite a lot. Let me give you an example:
"It is highly probable Iceland will not win the 2022 world cup in soccer"
You will properly agree with me on this statement: Iceland has a really crappy soccer team, infact they have never even played in the world cup.
However, what is the probability iceland win in 2022? There are about 100 countries which play soccer around the level iceland do now, so i might estimate it at 0.01. But that is properly far to high - countries such as brazil, argentina, germany, etc. are much larger. We might try to estimate their chance as being proportional to their football-playing population. I think that will leave us with a chance of about 10^-4 to 10^-6, and by other arguments i might get other estimates of the probability. Now, the key point is this which i am sure we can both agree on: I cannot calculate the probability.
By your reasoning it is clear i "have not established an accurate numerical value" and therefore my claim the probability is low is fraudulent, but that seem bizzare - ofcourse the probability is low!.
In fact, it is very hard to think of any real world situation where one can truly claim to have established an accurate numerical value :-).
Am i understanding you correctly, or do you want to modify your claim?
Ps.
Which instrument do you use when you measure probabilities?
Essan: I will give you that your definition of "believe" as in "I believe ..." Is a lot more sophisticated than i first thought.
Essan: Regarding Caedes: Language can be awfully inflexible, thats why i would like to give him the chance to express himself with more clarity. I think i might under other circumstances could have uttered a statement such as "i reject the existence of the easter bunny"; I mean, the easter bunny IS a fairly far-fetched hypothesis. My personal ranking:
0.01 > p(some god exist) > p(santa) > p(easter bunny) > 0.
Since you asked for numerical estimates, what numbers would you give?;-)
Hi Bohm,
You said:
I would like to think i have quite a good grasp of probability theory, so this is a somewhat surprising statement since it would seem to limit the scope of probability theory quite a lot. Let me give you an example:
"It is highly probable Iceland will not win the 2022 world cup in soccer"
You will properly agree with me on this statement: Iceland has a really crappy soccer team, infact they have never even played in the world cup."
If feel you are making a switch here - it's like the earlier claim that "belief" was a special scientific term with a unique meaning when used by atheists, but now you are doing the opposite, which is lifting probability out of a scientific context and using it as the 'man on the street does" when our context was very specifically science and scientists.
The man on the street guesses at what he thinks is probable and renders his opinion based on his experience. It's not a scientific process.
The scientist calculates probability - or should - and this should be a scientific process.
You're blurring the two as it suits you, IMO: "belief" you try to pass a technical scientific language, "probability" as understood by the average man, even though the context is specifically science.
PS I use a wooden retractible probability measurer LOL. It's old school but it gets the job done LOL. :)
