Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[Adrift]

So, why should I or anyone else care how Huxley see's it, atheism isn't knowing whether atheists think it is or not.

Sure, you can disregard Huxley if you'd like, but if you want to bandy about the definition of "agnosticism", and define what it is in comparison to "atheism" it's probably a good idea to know how the coiner of the term distinguished between the two. It sounds to me that you simply want to make "atheism" into some form of agnosticism, which isn't at all what Huxley meant when he coined the term agnosticism.

[Carrikature]

Thanks Sparko. Maybe what I'm saying is merely rhetoric, but I think it may actually be more than that. I believe that it is within my epistemic right to say that I KNOW that Buddha's do not live on remote planets sans any reason to accept that they do. As I told JimL, there is absolutely no reason for me to remain in a state of perpetual agnosticism on such things. I am making a claim to knowledge, and I feel I'm well within my right to make such a claim. Unlike the existence of God, for which there is plenty of evidence (even if one does not accept that evidence), I know of absolutely NO evidence or even any logical reasons to accept the proposition "many Buddhas live on many other planets". If someone asked you if the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually exists, you don't have to put a mental placeholder on such a concept. You don't have to answer "well, it's possible that such a thing exists, but I believe it doesn't." I think you would be well within your epistemological rights to say "I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist".

When Huxley coined the word "agnostic", he coined it as a word antithetical to those who had "gnosis" about all sorts of things (but specifically about God). I'm not agnostic about whether Buddhas exist on other planets, or whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster truly exists, or little pink fairies, or whatever. I claim gnosis that they do not exist.

And no JimL, I do not believe I have erred, so there's nothing for me to admit. I sincerely believe that I can know that Buddhas do not live on other planets sans any reason at all to suggest that they do. Now, if we're talking absolute or certain knowledge, well no, I can't probably know anything really. For all I know I'm a brain in a vat. But I think that's a radical form of skepticism.

This mostly sounds like just being philosophically lazy. It certainly doesn't count as knowledge in any meaningful sense of the word. I think you know this, too, given your last paragraph. Something being a radical form of skepticism doesn't make it invalid, nor does it give free license to ignore that definition in favor of laziness.

You also said that "atheists say they don't believe". That's not what Huxley says. He says that atheists (and theists, and pantheists, materialists, idealists) have gnosis=knowledge. They know. He coined the word to express that he isn't like an atheist who claims to know/gnosis, to the contrary, he claims agnosticism/without knowledge.

Sure, you can disregard Huxley if you'd like, but if you want to bandy about the definition of "agnosticism", and define what it is in comparison to "atheism" it's probably a good idea to know how the coiner of the term distinguished between the two. It sounds to me that you simply want to make "atheism" into some form of agnosticism, which isn't at all what Huxley meant when he coined the term agnosticism.

Complaining that 'agnostic' is not being used as originally intended doesn't change the common understanding of the term. Definitions aren't static, and the coiner of a term isn't the final arbiter of how it can be used. Yes, agnosticism in its purest sense speaks to the knowability of existence, but it's mostly used today to indicate one's own lack of knowledge and belief.

[Jedidiah]

This doctrinal statement of Wheaton College, "is reaffirmed annually by its Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff". "It provides a summary of biblical doctrine that is consonant with evangelical Christianity. The statement accordingly reaffirms salient features of the historic Christian creeds, thereby identifying the College not only with the Scriptures but also with the reformers and the evangelical movement of recent years. The statement also defines the biblical perspective which informs a Wheaton education. These doctrines of the church cast light on the study of nature and man, as well as on man's culture."

http://www.wheaton.edu/About-Wheaton...tional-Purpose

One can see that it may inhibit the full implementation of scientific methodology.

How so?

[Jedidiah]

To deny the possibility of supernatural explanations is equally a matter of faith. You are back to the argument that since the potter is not in the pot he does not exist.

[Adrift]

This mostly sounds like just being philosophically lazy.

I don't thinks so, but your welcome to your opinion.

It certainly doesn't count as knowledge in any meaningful sense of the word.

It certainly doesn't count? Are you familiar with absolutely all of the meaningful senses of the word? You've read all of the philosophical literature on the subject? If not, then you're in the same boat as I am.

I think you know this, too, given your last paragraph.

I wish people would stop telling me what they think I should know. I haven't been lying, hedging my bets, or saying something I don't otherwise think is true anywhere in this thread. I know what I'm saying, and I'm saying it.

Something being a radical form of skepticism doesn't make it invalid, nor does it give free license to ignore that definition in favor of laziness.

I'm not certain what exactly you're replying to here, but if you're really interested in my take on the subject, I suggest reading the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on Epistemic Contextualism that discusses the two senses of "know", and which posit that there are a number of relevant alternatives to justification-centered accounts of knowledge.

Complaining that 'agnostic' is not being used as originally intended doesn't change the common understanding of the term. Definitions aren't static, and the coiner of a term isn't the final arbiter of how it can be used. Yes, agnosticism in its purest sense speaks to the knowability of existence, but it's mostly used today to indicate one's own lack of knowledge and belief.

Huxley himself foresaw this quibbling over his definition of the word "agnostic", but it isn't just agnostics a century and a half ago saying this, even modern agnostics agree with it,

[Teallaura]

Sometimes science just looks at measurable effects, leaving possible causes for later investigation. For example Benson et al. (2006) Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients. In that study no measurable effect from prayer was found:

CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Investigating miracles has many problems. Suppose you set up a row of flasks with all their air evacuated. Each flask is assigned to a specific god/dess: YHWH, Allah, Vishnu, Amaterasu etc. Throw in a few controls: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, R'hllor etc. Also have a single flask with no deity assigned. Have priest/esses of each deity ask the deity to create hydrogen gas in their flask. The most hydrogen wins.

There are many potential problems with this simple experimental setup. For example:
Science can study some things -- like dating the Turin Shroud or DNA sequencing the blood found on it. Other things are currently beyond science.

rossum

Science cannot study prayer - the models are universally invalid - some humorously so.

1) In order for the experiment to be ethical you must get consent from all participants. Good luck getting God to sign the consent form.

2) There is NO way to control for prayer with humans. The only study I saw that overcame this problem had people praying for cultures in petri dishes. The conclusion was pro-prayer as I recall - but still invalid on the consent issue. It's even dubious to control for prayer with animals - one soft-hearted kid can muck up your whole control group.

3) There is no way to establish that a given outcome should necessarily happen if prayer is involved. The theory here is a hyperliteral reading of Scripture. Just like your Dad didn't mean 'you can buy a motor scooter' when he said you could get any toy in the store, there are understood parameters to prayer - the foremost being that God won't answer affirmatively a prayer for something counter to His will. Hence, there is no way to do a meaningful statistical analysis of the results - you don't know God's will in the individual cases.

Dumb studies like this happen when guys trained on the 'hard' science side think they understand human science methodology. They also happen when some group is publicity hungry, usually around funding time. In reality, the methodological issues with studying prayer are insurmountable.

[JimL]

I don't thinks so, but your welcome to your opinion.



It certainly doesn't count? Are you familiar with absolutely all of the meaningful senses of the word? You've read all of the philosophical literature on the subject? If not, then you're in the same boat as I am.



I wish people would stop telling me what they think I should know. I haven't been lying, hedging my bets, or saying something I don't otherwise think is true anywhere in this thread. I know what I'm saying, and I'm saying it.



I'm not certain what exactly you're replying to here, but if you're really interested in my take on the subject, I suggest reading the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on Epistemic Contextualism that discusses the two senses of "know", and which posit that there are a number of relevant alternatives to justification-centered accounts of knowledge.



Huxley himself foresaw this quibbling over his definition of the word "agnostic", but it isn't just agnostics a century and a half ago saying this, even modern agnostics agree with it,

But atheists don't know that god doesn't exist, do they, and neither do you know what does or does not exist in far away galaxies. You believe that you know, but you don't know.

[Tassman]

Not so. If I am blind and a fellow prays for me and then I can then see, then a miracle is fully verified in my understanding of the world. Those that are not me or are not present at the time of prayer must rely on the testimony of those that were there, and also the unpredictable nature of miracles themselves coupled with the impossibility of validating that an event did not occur as the result of a natural process renders scientfic validation of anything other than the fact I once was blind but now can see impossible.

[Tassman]

To deny the possibility of supernatural explanations is equally a matter of faith.

as a matter of faith

You are back to the argument that since the potter is not in the pot he does not exist.

[Adrift]

But atheists don't know that god doesn't exist, do they, and neither do you know what does or does not exist in far away galaxies. You believe that you know, but you don't know.

According to Huxley, atheists assert they know that God doesn't exist, in the same way that theists assert they know God does exist. That is why he coined the word "agnostic". It literally means "without knowledge". I didn't make any of this up. It was all thought out way before I came on the scene. So if this disturbs you, then take it up with Huxley. Or take it up with modern agnostics who disagree with you.

On my knowledge about Buddhas living on other planets that I haven't personally verified, I was talking to an epistemologists who specializes in the philosophy of mind about this discussion, and he made some interesting points. He wrote,



If you're interested, I also suggest reading the article on Epistemic Contextualism I linked above.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, it's my scenario created to illustrate the point, and so - yes I could. That is, in my scenario I am the person healed and I would have had a known physical cause for my blindness. Most people that are blind have known physical causes for their blindness, and so it didn't occur to me that to get you to consider the point I'd have to define away all possible ambiguity in the scenario. The point, do not forget, is to illustrate the fact that science can't verify an actual miracle as a miracle because if it is a miracle there may well be no direct physical cause. But I can validate the miracle, because I was blind and now I can see and the correlating event was the prayer. Thus there is nothing for science to validate - except the states before and after its occurrence, yet it would be a real, observable, event.

But your response is also to the point. You would not believe even if you did observe a real miracle. Your commitment to the idea God is a figment of people's imagination goes that deep. So for you to believe, it is likely you would need to be shaken to your core. But God has been known to do that on occasion - so I still have hope for you Tassman :)

And the point is not that ANYONE can see if they get prayed for. Miracles must at least be rare or it would be fairly easy to document them - yes? That second question is theological, not scientific. Why does God heal some and not others. It is a very difficult theological question ... if one accepts that God does heal some.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

as a matter of faith

The concept of the Multiverse in fact gives a good reason to make this assumption. It open's the possibility of whole universes where none of what we consider natural applies. And things like black holes and other singularities may provide potential opportunities for such separated universes to interact in ways unexpected or unexplainable by most if not all known methods. So yes there are potential lines of non-faith based reasoning that can lead to the conclusion that what we call the supernatural has a real basis in fact. Alternate dimensions, even alternate realities. And it makes for some great sci-fi writing in some cases.

[Tassman]

Well, it's my scenario created to illustrate the point, and so - yes I could. That is, in my scenario I am the person healed and I would have had a known physical cause for my blindness. Most people that are blind have known physical causes for their blindness, and so it didn't occur to me that to get you to consider the point I'd have to define away all possible ambiguity in the scenario. The point, do not forget, is to illustrate the fact that science can't verify an actual miracle as a miracle because if it is a miracle there may well be no direct physical cause. But I can validate the miracle, because I was blind and now I can see and the correlating event was the prayer. Thus there is nothing for science to validate - except the states before and after its occurrence, yet it would be a real, observable, event.

And the point is not that ANYONE can see if they get prayed for. Miracles must at least be rare or it would be fairly easy to document them - yes? That second question is theological, not scientific. Why does God heal some and not others. It is a very difficult theological question ... if one accepts that God does heal some.

The concept of the Multiverse in fact gives a good reason to make this assumption. It open's the possibility of whole universes where none of what we consider natural applies.

[JimL]

According to Huxley, atheists assert they know that God doesn't exist, in the same way that theists assert they know God does exist. That is why he coined the word "agnostic". It literally means "without knowledge". I didn't make any of this up. It was all thought out way before I came on the scene. So if this disturbs you, then take it up with Huxley. Or take it up with modern agnostics who disagree with you.

On my knowledge about Buddhas living on other planets that I haven't personally verified, I was talking to an epistemologists who specializes in the philosophy of mind about this discussion, and he made some interesting points. He wrote,



If you're interested, I also suggest reading the article on Epistemic Contextualism I linked above.

Okay, have it your way buddy. You should write a paper on your knowledge concerning the existing life forms in far away galaxies.

[rossum]

Science cannot study prayer - the models are universally invalid - some humorously so.

Look at the title of the paper. again: "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer ..." (emphasis added) The paper was not studying prayer directly, but the effects of prayer. Any material effects of prayer are within the remit of science because they are material.

A big flood or parting a sea are material effects and can, in principle, be studied by science purely as material effects. Science would not, for instance, be able to determine if YHWH or Vishnu produced the effect.

rossum