Posted by:
ificouldhietokolob
(
)
Date: July 03, 2015 04:27PM
Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KOLOB: "I can't explain this, so it's a
> miracle/god."
>
> COMMENT: I agree that such an inference is
> fallacious, but that is not the inference that is
> usually made, if ever. It is not the lack of
> explanation that supports the inference, but the
> nature of the proposed phenomenon. No theist would
> say that for any phenomenon that can't be
> explained, a miracle is implied. The lack of
> alternative explanation is merely cited, if at
> all, as an invitation to provide an alternative
> explanation.
That WAS the "inference" that was made in the story referred to. In fact, it wasn't even "inference," it was a direct claim. You're generalizing, when the story and claim were specific.
And I know dozens of theists who do ineed say that anything that "science" can't explain is a miracle. Maybe YOU don't, but claiming "no theist" would is false. A great many do on a regular basis.
>
> KOLOB: "That's an argument from personal ignorance
> and incredulity. Both are fallacious -- meaning
> worthless for reaching a valid conclusion. For
> very good reasons."
>
> COMMENT: NO! When the context is not a dogmatic
> religious pronouncement, a suggested inference
> from some mysterious occurrence to God is usually
> a sincere attempt to understand the phenomenon in
> the face of limited knowledge—even if such a
> person favors a religious explanation.
The context here WAS a dogmatic religious pronouncement.
At any rate, no matter how "sincere" the desire is to understand is irrelevant. "We don't have an explanation" means just that. To claim an explanation in the fact of that correct statement is indeed the fallacy I mentioned.
> There is
> nothing wrong with that—even if it involves
> "supernatural" agency. If one takes the position
> that only materialist explanations count, then one
> begs the question.
That's not the position I took. I pointed out that "We don't have an explanation" means what it says. I didn't say "the explanation must be materialist."
> But, in any event, it is not
> fallacious to consider supernatural agency as an
> explanation for "mysterious" coincidences,
> although it might be problematic on other grounds;
> particularly in the face of a clear natural
> explanation.
It's not "fallacious" to propose it as an hypothesis; it is to claim "that's the cause." Which is what was done in this case. Even worse, how it's often expressed is, "The cause is god unless you can prove it isn't."
> KOLOB: "So there's no need for me (or anyone else)
> to "explain" something, or else it's "god."
> Unexplained doesn't mean "god did it," unexplained
> means unexplained. Some people can't live with
> unexplained, so they say "god did it" just so they
> have an explanation. I'm ok with "unexplained."
> Even though most of the time, there are
> explanations that don't involve all-powerful
> supernatural beings. Or anything of the sort.
>
> COMMENT: Again, this is a mistake. Although
> unexplained does not mean God did it, when any
> "mysterious" phenomenon occurs, it does
> legitimately invite explanation beyond merely
> identifying it as "unexplained," as if that
> response was itself an explanation.
The only "mistake" is to decide that "unexplained" means "god did it." Which, once again, was the case here. And lacking any evidence for ANY definitive explanation, "unexplained" is not only correct, but also the only honest response. Speculate all you want, but it's still "unexplained" until verifiable evidence explains it.
Another thing, in this case, is that the phenomenon wasn't "mysterious" at all. So the premise wasn't even valid.
> Moreover, in
> principle what is mysterious, or unexplained,
> might well strongly imply a "supernatural"
> explanation...
And there you went off the tracks. Once again, unexplained means unexplained. It doesn't mean "Oh, that strongly implies the supernatural." It also doesn't strongly imply "it's material." It doesn't imply ANYTHING other than "unexplained." That's the basis of the argument from ignorance fallacy -- don't make up or claim or imply explanations when you have NO knowledge.
>, such that leaving it "unexplained"
> reveals only a reluctance to apply such an
> explanation.
I addressed this in my post, that some people can't stand the accurate and honest "unexplained." So they "imply" other things. When you have no facts or evidence, it's unexplained. The only "reluctance" is to not fallaciously make up or imply explanations.
> As a potent example, suppose JS' first vision
> experience actually occurred (Just to be clear, I
> do not for a minute believe it did.) One might
> ask, how is this explained? Assuming JS was
> honest, sincere, psychologically normal, not on
> drugs, etc., the best explanation might well be
> that he actually had a religious experience
> involving celestial beings. To take such an
> experience, and simply label it "unexplained"
> betrays only a bias against "supernatural"
> explanations. Here, "unexplained" merely serves
> as a placeholder for, "I don't believe it." When
> one addresses personal religious experiences of a
> more modest phenomenology, "supernatural"
> explanations are still viable explanations beyond
> simply insisting that such experiences be labeled
> "unexplained" and summarily dismissed.
Since you can provide NO evidence for any of your proposed explanations, they're not explanations at all. They're hypotheses. Until (and if) evidence is available to verify or falsify one or more hypotheses, they're not explanations. And the honest and accurate position IS "unexplained." That's not a placeholder -- Smith's own claim, like your proposed "explanations," has no supporting evidence. So there's no reason to "believe" the original claim, nor your alternatives. Your "viable alternatives" aren't viable; they may be plausible, but not viable. And it's your kind of approach that believing mormons dismiss so easily, since you can't show evidence your plausible alternatives are any more valid than Smith's own story. They all lack evidence, so the claims are worthless all around.
> KOLOB: "What would establish the existence of a
> "god" would be evidence (observable, repeatable,
> verifiable) of a "god." There isn't any evidence
> of a "god," so I don't believe there is one. It's
> that simple. I don't toss aside that simple
> rational approach out of fear, incredulity,
> wishful thinking, hope, ignorance or anything
> else."
>
> COMMENT: Here you are demanding "evidence" for God
> that goes beyond scientific principles of
> evidence.
I didn't "demand" anything. I simply pointed out what would establish that a "god" existed, and stated there is no such evidence. That's not a "demand," it's an observation.
> There is no way that any branch of
> science, even physics, limits its theoretical
> conclusions to such "evidence." String theory, as
> one example, has no such evidence to support it;
...and "string theory" isn't claimed to be fact. And won't be until and if evidence shows it is.
> it is based almost entirely upon a theoretical,
> and quite speculative, mathematical modeling. Yet,
> it enjoys wide appeal in the physics community.
Yes, and everyone working in the field understands that it's not a fact established by evidence; they're treating it as an hypothesis, and working to find evidence for or against it.
> The soft sciences, and history, accept evidence
> all the time that is not observable, repeatable,
> or verifiable.
The "soft sciences" deal in probabilities, and say so -- and none of them are trying to establish the fact of claimed supernatural beings.
> So, if you want to hold religion
> to a given standard of evidence, you need to
> define such a standard that is consistent with
> "evidence" in other contexts.
The same standard as anything else that claims something exists factually. No difference.
> More importantly, there *is* evidence for God (in
> some sense) that is quite well known and
> acknowledged.
And that would be...? Notice the only people claim there is, and "acknowledge" supposed evidence, are those who already "believe" in one? How about that.
> You just reject such evidence, and
> apparently feel more comfortable in denying that
> it has evidential value. But to suggest, as you
> do repeatedly on the Board, that "there is no
> evidence for God," is nothing more than rhetorical
> nonsense.
No, it's a fact.
Feelings, subjective personal "experiences," etc. are not evidence. Period. They may be personally "convincing" to YOU (or the person who has them), but they're not evidence.
Thanks for the discussion, Henry :)