Can We Today Believe In Miracles?

[magellan004]

blasphemy!!!

You must stone him to death. Leviticus 24.14. God will be satisfied with nothing less.

Yes, blasphemy is old fashioned. Nobody cares. It's a joke - compare it with trendy sins like opposing homosexuality, making any comment that has to do with a person's 'ethnic' characteristics. For those - there is a real internet or media stoning.

Magellan

[magellan004]

Not just “many scientists support Evolution” - The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory. And for the very good reason that it is the only verifiable explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.

And if many people believe it, then it must be true?

And what counts heaps for the “true believers” (snide comment noted) in Evolution is the verified knowledge based upon physical evidence acquired by observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories which can make predictions - which in turn are reinforced by continuing experiments from which further technologies and theories can develop.

And if many people believe it, then it must be true?

Creationism has none of the above.

You are contradicting yourself. A a few posts ago you commented that because so many people agree - ...

*Oh, and look up the definition of 'Consilience'.

So consilience occurs when many people's conclusions contradict?

Your question And if many people believe it, then it must be true? was simply a swipe at Christians. It applies equally to the religion of evolutionists.


Magellan

[Doug Shaver]

And if many people believe it, then it must be true?

Many times when discussing evolution some people mention 'Consilience' which is agreement.

It is a kind of agreement, but not the same kind as "consensus." It is more like the kind of agreement that "multiple independent attestation" is.

[pancreasman]

Consilience is is when the same result is arrived at by independent lines of enquiry, often entirely different scientific disciplines. A simple example might be trying to find the total amount of money lying on a table.

One person might count it.

Another person might weigh the money, and knowing the weight of various coins arrive at a total.

Another person might ask the person who put it there how much it was.

Another might take a statistical sample of a small area and calculate what the total area might contain.

If all these totals are in the same neighbourhood allowing for experimental error, we might say the methods show consilience. The more independent lines of enquiry arrive at similar answers, the more confidence we can place in the result. This has nothing to do with 'the number of people agreeing' since every calculation can be demonstrated and repeated by anyone with the requisite ability.

[Tassman]

Yes, blasphemy is old fashioned. Nobody cares. It's a joke - compare it with trendy sins like opposing homosexuality, making any comment that has to do with a person's 'ethnic' characteristics. For those - there is a real internet or media stoning.

Magellan

“Trendy sins”!!! You mean like the “trendy sins” of opposing the abolition of slavery, or “trendy sins” like granting full civil rights to blacks, or “trendy sins” like the emancipation of women, etc. All of these “trendy sins” were resisted on biblical grounds, just as homosexuality is.

“Blasphemy” is a meaningless and irrelevant notion for those who do not believe in gods or believe in a different god – in which case Christians are the blasphemers.

[Tassman]

And if many people believe it, then it must be true?


And if many people believe it, then it must be true?

Well no. But if the majority of people who are in a position to know i.e. the vast majority of the scientific community and academia that supports evolutionary theory then it is more likely than not to be true.

You are contradicting yourself. A a few posts ago you commented that because so many people agree - ...

Not people who are in a position to know, i.e. the vast majority of the scientific community and academia. The members of these bodies can provide considerable verified evidence to support their position. Creationists cannot.

Your question And if many people believe it, then it must be true? was simply a swipe at Christians. It applies equally to the religion of evolutionists.

Unlike religious beliefs, Evolution is a multiply tested, empirically based, highly productive scientific Theory. It is no more than a religion than Electro-Magnetic Theory or the Theory of Gravity. So please do not drag science down to the level of the blind faith that ultimately characterizes religion.

[magellan004]

“Trendy sins”!!! You mean like the “trendy sins” of opposing the abolition of slavery, or “trendy sins” like granting full civil rights to blacks, or “trendy sins” like the emancipation of women, etc. All of these “trendy sins” were resisted on biblical grounds, just as homosexuality is.

“Blasphemy” is a meaningless and irrelevant notion for those who do not believe in gods or believe in a different god – in which case Christians are the blasphemers.

You are right. Shunnyadragon is an unbeliever . :)


Magellan

[magellan004]

Well no. But if the majority of people who are in a position to know i.e. the vast majority of the scientific community and academia that supports evolutionary theory then it is more likely than not to be true.

Not people who are in a position to know, i.e. the vast majority of the scientific community and academia. The members of these bodies can provide considerable verified evidence to support their position. Creationists cannot.

Unlike religious beliefs, Evolution is a multiply tested, empirically based, highly productive scientific Theory. It is no more than a religion than Electro-Magnetic Theory or the Theory of Gravity. So please do not drag science down to the level of the blind faith that ultimately characterizes religion.

Can I interrupt this arm-wrestle between Evolution and Religon? I would like to ask some serious questions about your terminology. I have occasionally asked various people about the following terms but I haven't had much luck.

You mention regularly 'empirical evidence' and 'verified evidence'. What do you mean by them?
Let's say we have 5 people reporting that they observed something and they all agree that they observed the same thing. How would you determine whether their observation qualified as 1. Empirical evidence and 2. Verified evidence.?
Please remember we are talking about a report of a past event.

Some of the answers I have seen include things like 'Observed through the Senses' , 'Observed as part of a test.' 'Made by scientists', 'Observed by an experimenter.' None of those seems satisfactory. ( I can explain why if you wish.)

Other answers have included 'Repeatable'. But there is a problem with past events. They are not repeatable. Also we do not know what will happen in the future so we cannot say 'You will see X happen again.' We can say 'You can test whether X happens again' but that only means the test is repeatable, not the 'evidence'.

I'd be interested in your answer (or anyone's answer.)

Magellan

[Tassman]

You are right. Shunnyadragon is an unbeliever . :)


Magellan

Only in your little deity, as I understand it.

[Tassman]

Can I interrupt this arm-wrestle between Evolution and Religon? I would like to ask some serious questions about your terminology. I have occasionally asked various people about the following terms but I haven't had much luck.

You mention regularly 'empirical evidence' and 'verified evidence'. What do you mean by them?
Let's say we have 5 people reporting that they observed something and they all agree that they observed the same thing. How would you determine whether their observation qualified as 1. Empirical evidence and 2. Verified evidence.?
Please remember we are talking about a report of a past event.

Some of the answers I have seen include things like 'Observed through the Senses' , 'Observed as part of a test.' 'Made by scientists', 'Observed by an experimenter.' None of those seems satisfactory. ( I can explain why if you wish.)

Other answers have included 'Repeatable'. But there is a problem with past events. They are not repeatable. Also we do not know what will happen in the future so we cannot say 'You will see X happen again.' We can say 'You can test whether X happens again' but that only means the test is repeatable, not the 'evidence'.

I'd be interested in your answer (or anyone's answer.)

Magellan

Empirical evidence is derived from observation and verification confirms it consequent upon testing. In historical situations one can only assess the probability of the event being described, i.e. the reliability of the witnesses, cultural milieu, group dynamics and motivation etc.

Supernatural violations of nature (miracles) while hypothetically possible are the least probable explanation of any occurrence because there is no credible evidence or epistemology for knowing the supernatural. Therefore any natural explanation is the more likely explanation. Of course, one can choose to believe an occurance was a miracle if one so desires - but only as an as an act of faith, not as verified empirical evidence.

[magellan004]

Empirical evidence is derived from observation and verification confirms it consequent upon testing. In historical situations one can only assess the probability of the event being described, i.e. the reliability of the witnesses, cultural milieu, group dynamics and motivation etc.

Supernatural violations of nature (miracles) while hypothetically possible are the least probable explanation of any occurrence because there is no credible evidence or epistemology for knowing the supernatural. Therefore any natural explanation is the more likely explanation. Of course, one can choose to believe an occurance was a miracle if one so desires - but only as an as an act of faith, not as verified empirical evidence.

You are doing what legions did before you. You state a requirement for evidence to qualify as 'empirical' then when it turns out that all evidence is empirical, you add in more requirements.

Let's say we have 5 people reporting that they observed something and they all agree that they observed the same thing. How would you determine whether their observation qualified as 1. Empirical evidence and 2. Verified evidence.?
'Empirical evidence is derived from observation' - so in my example, what the 5 people observed qualifies as empirical evidence.
'verification confirms it consequent upon testing' - I assume you mean that the empirical evidence turns into verified evidence upon testing. In the 5 people example their observation may or may not be part of a test. So you can't write it off as unverified. So when do you know whether the observations were part of a test? Certainly most 'scientific' observations aren't. Darwin cruising around the Oceans making notes, the Hubble telescope sending back photos. Neither of those would qualify as verified evidence.

In fact all we really know about so called tests is what we hear in reports. 'So and So tested X, y, z.' Why does that report verify something? It's all pretty shaky.

Anyway - you then add in more ingredients - probability of the event ( as opposed to the observation) , which is a separate issue to 'empirical' and 'verified'. Any past event is an historical event. You have no way of knowing the reliability of observers
in any scientific study you read about.

The thing is - if you hear a tale of say Archimedies playing with gold objects in his bath you are likely to believe it whereas if you hear a story about a Bible miracle, you will not believe it - all because of , I suspect, prejudice.


Magellan

[shunyadragon]

You are doing what legions did before you. You state a requirement for evidence to qualify as 'empirical' then when it turns out that all evidence is empirical, you add in more requirements.

Let's say we have 5 people reporting that they observed something and they all agree that they observed the same thing. How would you determine whether their observation qualified as 1. Empirical evidence and 2. Verified evidence.?
'Empirical evidence is derived from observation' - so in my example, what the 5 people observed qualifies as empirical evidence.
'verification confirms it consequent upon testing' - I assume you mean that the empirical evidence turns into verified evidence upon testing. In the 5 people example their observation may or may not be part of a test. So you can't write it off as unverified. So when do you know whether the observations were part of a test? Certainly most 'scientific' observations aren't. Darwin cruising around the Oceans making notes, the Hubble telescope sending back photos. Neither of those would qualify as verified evidence.

In fact all we really know about so called tests is what we hear in reports. 'So and So tested X, y, z.' Why does that report verify something? It's all pretty shaky.

Anyway - you then add in more ingredients - probability of the event ( as opposed to the observation) , which is a separate issue to 'empirical' and 'verified'. Any past event is an historical event. You have no way of knowing the reliability of observers
in any scientific study you read about.

The thing is - if you hear a tale of say Archimedies playing with gold objects in his bath you are likely to believe it whereas if you hear a story about a Bible miracle, you will not believe it - all because of , I suspect, prejudice.


Magellan

Total lack of understanding of scientific methodology

[Tassman]

You are doing what legions did before you. You state a requirement for evidence to qualify as 'empirical' then when it turns out that all evidence is empirical, you add in more requirements.

Let's say we have 5 people reporting that they observed something and they all agree that they observed the same thing. How would you determine whether their observation qualified as 1. Empirical evidence and 2. Verified evidence.?
'Empirical evidence is derived from observation' - so in my example, what the 5 people observed qualifies as empirical evidence.
'verification confirms it consequent upon testing' - I assume you mean that the empirical evidence turns into verified evidence upon testing. In the 5 people example their observation may or may not be part of a test. So you can't write it off as unverified. So when do you know whether the observations were part of a test? Certainly most 'scientific' observations aren't. Darwin cruising around the Oceans making notes, the Hubble telescope sending back photos. Neither of those would qualify as verified evidence.

In fact all we really know about so called tests is what we hear in reports. 'So and So tested X, y, z.' Why does that report verify something? It's all pretty shaky.

Anyway - you then add in more ingredients - probability of the event ( as opposed to the observation) , which is a separate issue to 'empirical' and 'verified'. Any past event is an historical event. You have no way of knowing the reliability of observers
in any scientific study you read about.

The thing is - if you hear a tale of say Archimedies playing with gold objects in his bath you are likely to believe it whereas if you hear a story about a Bible miracle, you will not believe it - all because of , I suspect, prejudice.

Magellan

Re the bolded: Well the “legions” have good reason for doing so. If a claim by 5 people cannot be supported by verifiable evidence then there is no way to substantiate it. No one doubts that they “believe” their observations to be true but that does not make them true.

The psychiatric hospitals are full of people utterly convinced of their delusional beliefs. I’ve met many and one cannot doubt their sincerity. Outsiders can choose to believe them if they wish but it doesn’t mean they are right.

Less extreme examples can be found all over. Was Sai Baba really a miracle-working reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi? Thousands believe he was. Did the sun really careen towards earth at Fatima? Thousands of the faithful swear that it did. Does Tinkerbelle really require all the children at the pantomime to chant their belief in her in order for her to survive? The children certainly think so. Just ask my young daughter. Did St Paul really experience a divine apparition on the Damascus road? Millions believe he did. But it may just as well have been a Temporal Lobe Epileptic seizure. They frequently result in a hyper-religious paranormal experience. The same may well apply to Muhammad who is believed to have been epileptic.

Thus, all that is "pretty shaky" are unsubstantiated, improbable claims.

[Doug Shaver]

The thing is - if you hear a tale of say Archimedies playing with gold objects in his bath you are likely to believe it

Not me.

I used to believe it, yes. My current stance is: It could have happened, and I can't prove it didn't happen, but the evidence for it is insufficient to warrant my believing that it did happen.

all because of , I suspect, prejudice.

Yeah, sort of. I've spent lots of years looking for an answer to the question "What do we know, and how we know it?" I don't have an answer yet that will fit on a T shirt, but I have acquired something like a prejudice against the notion that if lots of people believe a story, then it's probably a true story. And I do not mean just religious stories.

[magellan004]

Not me.

I used to believe it, yes. My current stance is: It could have happened, and I can't prove it didn't happen, but the evidence for it is insufficient to warrant my believing that it did happen.


Yeah, sort of. I've spent lots of years looking for an answer to the question "What do we know, and how we know it?" I don't have an answer yet that will fit on a T shirt, but I have acquired something like a prejudice against the notion that if lots of people believe a story, then it's probably a true story. And I do not mean just religious stories.

OK. I like thinking about these things also. I have no answers but I think the equation between 'Science = I know' is not how people work. That's my view. I think people 'know' based on instinct and feelings mostly. Of course I can't prove that.

But I have a personal question about your investigations into knowing. For you, is there a 'mathematically' flavoured line between 'I imagine', 'I know', 'I think' and 'I believe'. Are they on a continuum of conviction?

Magellan