is atheism falsifiable?
What would you accept as positive evidence that a god-man appeared to human beings at some point in history?
My cute little blogging buddy asks the funniest questions. He’s a scientist who thinks that life fits into all his science and logic boxes. I’m an atheist who thinks that reality fits into science and logic boxes, but thoughts and beliefs are more ethereal. That’s why I think it’s okay for theists to have their superstitious thoughts and that’s why I only argue with them when they’re being nasty with their beliefs, or, like PeW, when they’re wrong about reality.
Atheism is falsifiable because if a god appeared sparkling in the sky explaining why she’d been hiding from humanity and why no-one appeared to understand the messages she’d tried to send, I’d be shocked, but would really have to rethink my belief system. If Zeus rode into my patio on a thunderbolt, booming how furious he is that everyone is treating him like a myth, I would stand dumbstruck in his godly presence and retract my atheism on the spot. (I would bear in mind that I might have gone insane, but that’s a possibility at any juncture in life, so I’d try and go with the flow like always.)
Atheism is falsifiable on the presentation of evidence. This does not mean that there is any evidence that can demonstrate that a god-man appeared to human beings 2000 years ago. Can you please stop asking these silly questions now?
Like I pointed out to John, this places us in a difficult position: if in fact Christianity was substantively true, our evidential paradigm would prevent us from recognizing it. As a scientist, I find that problematic.
It also means that Ark is being entirely disingenuous when he asks for evidence of Christianity. But of course we already knew that.
LikeLike
” if in fact Christianity was substantively true, our evidential paradigm would prevent us from recognizing it.” Can you explain that in plain English?
LikeLike
Sorry. 🙂
It’s one thing to believe that there simply isn’t enough evidence to believe Jesus existed, died, and resurrected. That’s understandable. But to believe that there couldn’t be enough evidence for such an event in history, even if the resurrection were true, is another thing altogether. Because our approach would literally be preventing us from knowing what’s true and what’s false.
LikeLike
Good point. I mean amen, ummm… gotta go.
LikeLike
And that, PeW, is why your god God wants you to have faith.
LikeLike
Uh, no. What I’m talking about is the opposite of faith. M
LikeLike
Oh, physics, just man up and admit you have no evidence and your entire belief system rides on, “‘Oh look, a unicorn!’….. someone said, maybe, once, perhaps…. we’re not really sure.”
LikeLike
I don’t have to. You’ve already admitted your atheism is unfalsifiable….an article of faith. At least I’m claiming both evidence and falsifiability.
LikeLike
I never said it wasn’t falsifiable. don’t put words into my mouth to satisfy your ends. that’s very weak apologetics…. very William Lane Craig and Ken Ham.
Violet aid it perfectly: it is falsifiable. So, over to you, big guy…. prove us wrong.
LikeLike
As a “scientist” you find it “problematic” that the scientific method, which is empirico-positive and naturalistic, has nothing to say about the supernatural? What is this babble? You’re no scientist.
LikeLike
Ouch! Poor PeW. He’s not responded I see …
LikeLike
Some people magically seem to transform into assholes as soon as they get behind a keyboard, it seems….
LikeLike
Smooth move, putting words in my mouth. Does that typically work for you, or are you going out on a limb here?
Try re-reading and come again. This is about history and falsifiability, not empirical methods.
LikeLike
“Evidential paradigm” IS about empirical methods. You don’t understand science.
LikeLike
There’s a state Academy of Science that would disagree with you, but we’ll let it slide.
Care to explain what it is I don’t understand?
LikeLike
You don’t understand that your cranky arguments are worse than wrong, they’re MEANINGLESS in a scientific context. Science has NOTHING to say about the supernatural and CAN have nothing to say about it. Go waste someone else’s time with your incoherent babbling!
“A state Academy of Science”? Did you attend this “academy”? You don’t understand science. You’re a crank. Go away!
LikeLike
When did I ever say science had something to say about the supernatural? You’re making shit up and it’s irritating.
I assume you’ve never heard of the American Association for the Advancement of Science? Publishers of Science?
Typically I wouldn’t stoop to mention credentials or degrees online, but you’re being a huge asshole….so it’s rather warranted.
LikeLike
You haven’t mentioned any credentials or degrees, you pathetic asshole crank!
LikeLike
It seems you have trouble reading English, then?
I have a degree in physics; I minored in history; I’ve been published in a daughter journal of the AAAS for my work in experimental physics and optics. I taught research and writing at my university for several years. I’m quite adept at practicing science and researching history. Moreover, I’m not the one who’s being an asshole here; that would be you.
In the study of history, evidential paradigms don’t allow for empiricism because history is (obviously) not repeatable or testable. If you’d been paying attention, you would have noticed that.
Happy now?
LikeLike
(My apologies, Violet, for going off like Paul in Philippians 3. He was irritating me. I hope you don’t mind my rant.)
LikeLike
Congratulations on your short career as an adjunct grind.
LikeLike
Thanks. Have a good night.
LikeLike
If ::anything without evidence to include dragons, unicorns, ALL other religions, psychics, ghosts, ufos, bigfoot, unicorns, etc:: were true, our evidential paradigm would prevent us from recognizing it. Until we have such evidence….We must have standards and levels of evidence or everything would be considered truth?
LikeLike
Not at all. If any of those creatures existed, our evidential paradigm would absolutely recognize and accept it.
It’s because we have standards of evidence that we can be confident when we say unicorns et al don’t exist. But if our standard of evidence would reject unicorns even if they DID exist and were observable….that’s a problem. Wouldn’t you agree?
LikeLike
Double bollocks. I told you what would be considered “evidence” and your very conveniently ignored it.
LikeLike
Not really, no. Jesus existing on Earth today would flatly disprove the New Testament narrative, since it places him not-on-Earth following his ascension.
So I’ll give you another shot. What evidence would support the historicity of the New Testament narrative?
LikeLike
Triple bollocks… if it wasn’t important why did your character CHOSE to appear to some people (as the tale goes) just to PROVE he was resurrected. From the story it appears it was considered necessary….
LikeLike
Still waiting. The clock’s ticking….
….will you substantiate your claims of falsifiability or not?
LikeLike
Don’t try and change the subject Mr. Ken Ham. Explain to me why it was SO VERY IMPORTANT (vital, even) for your god-man to prove he was resurrected….
Balls in your court….
LikeLike
The subject is whether atheism is falsifiable. That’s the title of this article. So let me see what you’ve got.
I’m happy to answer your question, but I’m not going to let you avoid defending your claims.
LikeLike
… and with that PeW wiggles his way out of facing the awkward realisation that his own god-man thought it VITAL to prove the resurrection….
LikeLike
I’m still not sure I understand the question.
Are you going to defend your claim of falsifiability or not?
LikeLike
I already have. Violet nailed it. Atheism is, clearly, falsifiable.
Now, explain to us all why your god-man thought it VITAL and ESSENTIAL to “prove” he resurrected….
It’s clear, by the story, that verifiable evidence of the supernatural event was considered important by the central character.
LikeLike
You cited an arbitrary and totally spurious scenario completely disconnected from the actual question. I’ll give you another shot; make it even easier this time. What specific evidence would convince you of the historicity of the synoptic gospels?
To answer your question: Jesus felt it important to prove his resurrection….because Christianity depends on the veracity of the resurrection. That seems obvious.
LikeLike
“Jesus felt it important to prove his resurrection….because Christianity depends on the veracity of the resurrection. That seems obvious.”
So important that he just paid a visit to a few of his illiterate friends. Pathetic excuse, and that’s putting it mildly.
LikeLike
Cut the crap. What are you actually asking? And what do you think I’m making an excuse for?
You still haven’t made any attempt to answer the question. If your belief isn’t falsifiable, just say so. Don’t try to muddy the waters with all this misdirection bullshit.
LikeLike
Do you actually read my comments. i have said it IS falsifiable.
You said Christianity DEPENDS on the veracity of the resurrection. The word used is “depends.” That would mean evidence is considered vitally important. Without verifiable, observable, measurable evidence there can be no Christianity. Correct?
LikeLike
Then back up your claim. What evidence would convince you of the historicity of the synoptic gospels? I’m not going to continue playing this back-and-forth bullshit until you answer the question.
LikeLike
Oh for fucks sake, PeW, are you trying to play dumb? I told you the other day what i would consider evidence. have you forgotten?
Now, evidence for your god-man (evidence which he apparently considered ESSENTIAL) or shut up and stop bothering people with this nonsense.
LikeLike
A presently-living Jesus is not consistent with the New Testament, so why would you accept it as evidence in support of the New Testament?
Christianity depends on the resurrection being true. It does not depend on the existence of sufficient evidence to convince a particular blogger twenty centuries later.
LikeLike
That unicorn is purple… and it’s farting rainbows!!!!
LikeLike
DOUBLE RAINBOWS?
This is going nowhere. I’ll just write a new post.
LikeLike
Great! I’d be keen to hear why the writers of your god-man story thought verifiable, hard, measurable, observable evidence of their characters resurrection was soooooooo important to the plotline…. but not so important to actually produce said evidence.
LikeLike
You’re the one who is claiming durable, measurable evidence is a fundamental requirement of Christianity, not me.
And the one refusing to defend your claim of falsifiability, but that’s the subject of the upcoming post. 🙂
LikeLike
Crap… you said “Christianity DEPENDS on the veracity of the resurrection.
Your words, not mine.
I do believe that’s Check and Mate! Thanks for playing 🙂
LikeLike
Veracity (n): correctness or accuracy.
Veracity does not mean “confirmability-by-john-zande”. Not in any dictionary I’ve found.
LikeLike
And by “correctness and accuracy” one would be meaning observable, measurable, hard, cold, verifiable, testable EVIDENCE, correct? The type of evidence your god-man once thought essential, or else he would never have returned… right?
Honestly, PeW stop digging. You’ve lost.
LikeLike
No, “correctness and accuracy” would mean that it’s correct and accurate.
At 9:20 AM CDT, I just snapped my fingers four times in succession. That’s a correct and accurate statement. That statement is, however, neither observable, measurable, hard, cold, verifiable, nor testable.
See the difference?
LikeLike
And I’m impressed by how well you continue to avoid defending your claims. Props.
LikeLike
You’re still digging PeW…
LikeLike
You’re just being disingenuous now, and that’s unfortunate.
LikeLike
You’re wiggling out of the fact that you’ve been nailed.
By your own admission EVIDENCE was essential to the jesus story.
So, where’s your evidence…. Produce it, or shut up.
LikeLike
Now who’s putting words into people’s mouths?
I already said, I’m not playing this game anymore until you address the question.
LikeLike
Oh look, a unicorn!
LikeLike
“The subject is whether atheism is falsifiable. That’s the title of this article.” And the clear conclusion of the article is that it is. Why are you still asking John these silly questions? I’ve read all the way down the discussion and you added nothing that negates what I said. If you think the post comes to a false conclusion you should deal with the first before demanding answers to the same silly questions.
LikeLike
He has yet to answer the question I asked him at the beginning.
LikeLike
PeW, what part of the post do you disagree with? If you accept what I’ve said in the post you have to concede that atheism is clearly falsifiable on the production of evidence NOW. That has nothing to do with eye-witness accounts from a few friends and followers of a man who claimed to be a god, in a time of great ignorance, when we can find eyewitness accounts of dragons and witches from even later on.
LikeLike
You say:
This does not mean that there is any evidence that can demonstrate that a god-man appeared to human beings 2000 years ago.
Atheism is certainly falsifiable in terms of the here and now. No argument there. But the rejection of Christianity does not seem to be falsifiable, and since I’m a Christian, that’s the aspect of atheism I’m most concerned with.
LikeLike
Ah. I see. You’re confusing things. You think specifically Christian disbelief is only falsifiable by accepting the events of 2000 years ago? WRONG. That would be the next obvious step but it isn’t what the argument hinges on. According to your tradition, specifically Christian disbelief is falsifiable by the god Holy Spirit moving someone to believe. More realistic possibilities would be that someone who has faith in your god God could actually do something with a power that came from a God, that we cannot explain. But that would mean that every other Christian in history didn’t have enough faith to do those things, which would be a bit of a shame. The other thing I would point out is that for most atheists, if Jesus did appear to usher the endtimes and it was immediately obvious to us all it wasn’t a hoax, we would still think he was nasty for his temple rage and tree killing, the god God’s jealousy, anger and murder rate, and reject the notion of benevolence out of hand. There would need to be some serious explaining about the Bible … (and not the kind that any of you lot with your *new* translation and interpretation can come up with.)
LikeLike
“You think specifically Christian disbelief is only falsifiable by accepting the events of 2000 years ago? WRONG.”
I disagree. Someone manifesting magical powers today would certainly falsify naturalism, but you would have no reason to trust that they were telling you the truth about what happened 2000 years ago. For all you know, someone merely developed magical powers and believed them to be Christian in origin. Similarly, the abstract notion of the Holy Spirit changing someone’s mind may be evidence for nonphysical spirit beings, but it’s not evidence for anything that happened in the past.
LikeLike
Atheism is the purposeful rejection of the God of Jacob who Created Heaven, Earth, and Man. Atheism itself has been demonstrated utterly false and one day this idea will also burn up along with Satan and his demons and all those who follow it. We Christians have been gently warning that after an Atheist dies it will be impossible for her to switch allegiance to the Sovereign God for the purpose of saving oneself from the well deserved punishment to follow. The evidence has already been presented like an open book: Creation itself and the Word of God. He who created your mind, soul, and body has left you with no more excuses to lean upon.
LikeLike
Thanks YoungEarth, and welcome to my blog! I do hope you’ll be able to give your input to more posts, as your point of view is one we’re currently lacking. I’m not particularly clear who gave you your definition of atheism, but I like to think of it as simply not believing in any of the gods that have been created by the superstitious mind of humankind. Your god, their god, everyone’s gods!
Are you hoping to win many people over to your superstitious brand of creator god by scaring them with afterlife punishment stories? How very advanced! Perhaps the evolutionary tract you inhabit in is indeed only 6000 years old…
LikeLike
Smacks of Poe….
LikeLike
PaW, do you believe as Youngearth does or yours is a different view?
LikeLike
A very different view.
Pretty sure he’s a Poe based on his site. Could always be wrong, though….that’s the definition of a Poe, after all.
LikeLike
Youngearth, I do hope young earth doesn’t mean you believe in a 10K year old earth give or take a few years.
When was atheism proved false and who, if you may, did this. It seems there is information that has not reached the many atheists I know and you could be of help.
You don’t find it odd that your creator god, who didn’t ask of our permission to be created is so ready to burn us in hell or wherever place when all we ask of him is just to show up?
The universe is not evidence for god, I think you know that unless the bible is the only book you read.
What makes the christian god the sovereign god in the market place of gods?
LikeLike
Who is being so silly?
LikeLike
Ark and John! (only joking, you know it’s PeW, right?)
LikeLike
I had an idea PaW would be the likely candidate. Does he believe the things he writes or he just has a good time pushing ark in arguments with no end in sight!
LikeLike
Ark IS a lot of fun to bait, I’ll give you that.
LikeLike
Like i said, I’ll pray for you.
Hey, what’s going to happen to your little four-legged friend when you travel?
LikeLike
You trying to make me cry? She’s staying with the girl who’s renting our house. She’s lived in this street her whole life, so it seems less disruptive than going to live in a city centre flat the other side of the world …
LikeLike
Good to hear.
LikeLike
I’m not sure it is this easy. When you ask someone to define what would falsify their core belief it is by definition impossible to do so, because the thing you ask them to disprove is the very foundation of their belief. A real Christian cannot work out what it would take to disprove God. A freudian could not work out how to disprove libido and a physicist would be hard to devise an experiment that demonstrates that the basic scientific premise of theory confirmed by demonstration is wrong.
I doubt very much that a true Atheist could accept God if s/he showed up: no god could prove that s/he is god. All his/her evidence would be subjective and experiential. Ultimately it would come down to the question: you have to believe what you see and hear and accounts from anyone making that claim are disbelieved by atheists.
Atheism has a bright future: it will survive no matter what evidence for God is ever found…:)!
LikeLike
Do you really think so? I think lots of people have been proven wrong. It can take a while to digest and process the information but they do come round. The Christian god God promises a forceful and undeniable godly presence, which I assume any imaginary god could muster up. We can imagine that an all-powerful deity, or several deities, wouldn’t have the same ‘aura’ as a human in a silly costume, and the supernatural they would bring with them to physical world could easily introduce a new dimension of sense to which we were previously blind.
LikeLike
When the spanish explored the coast of America, some indian tribes took the ships to be from God (if only that had know better). If they had atheists there, they would have been converted on the spot. If someone shows me a new dimension, I’ll be looking for a scientific explanation and still wont take God’s word for it – and the crazy thing is, I have nothing against God and would have nothing against him Coming Out.But as far as atheism goes, an atheist who accepts God through whatever evidence is a convert.
LikeLike
I’m quite certain I know what would disprove Christianity.
LikeLike
So do I, but I am not a Christian. A Christian that knows a way to disprove Christianity does not have complete and unconditional faith
LikeLike
A Christian that knows a way to disprove Christianity does not have complete and unconditional faith.
Hmm, very interesting. You think blind faith is necessary to be a Christian? I don’t. I don’t even know any Christians who do.
LikeLike
Nor do I, because if I knew one with the faith the size of a mustard seed, he’d move a mountain and it would be quite messy. On the other hand, Christians have to take God entirely on faith, that is the whole premise of belief. However, if you allow for all those Christians that don’t believe in God, then I will agree with you that their core belief is falsifiable.
LikeLike
Christians have to take God entirely on faith, that is the whole premise of belief.
Isn’t that statement begging the question? All the Christians I know….and I know a helluvalot of them….would tell you they believe in God because they think they have ample evidence to do so. Now, faith may lead them to handwave contrary evidence and so forth, but blind faith alone has nothing to do with it.
LikeLike
Call it evidence if you prefer. But the question was: can those Christian conceive a condition under which they would discard that evidence and reject God? I don’t think so.
I am not arguing why people should or shouldn’t believe but that in my view it is impossible for them to conceive the opposite from that very belief.
LikeLike
Interesting.
So the criteria for “blind faith” isn’t whether or not you have evidence for your beliefs, but whether you’d allow evidence to challenge your beliefs? I like that. Can I plagiarize it for the post I’m currently writing?
LikeLike
You can’t plagiarise your own comments and your criteria for blind faith are entirely yours, not mine 🙂
We’re drifting a bit here. Faith, in my world, is unconditional. If I had evidence for my faith, then I wouldn’t need faith in the first place. But I accept that faith may have a wider meaning for others. I seem to recall that agnostics spent centuries discussion this question.
But the question we were discussing – I thought – is: For someone who believes in God, can they conceive of evidence that would undo that belief in God, whether that belief was acquired through faith, experience or otherwise?
LikeLike
The very narrow definition of “faith” or “belief” used when someone angrily says “Your arguments don’t matter; I have faith!!1!11!1” is definitely MUCH narrower than all the things that faith can and does usually mean.
I’m sure there are Christians who can conceive in evidence that would undo belief, and Christians who cannot. The question is, what’s the difference? What does that distinction mean?
LikeLike
I think we’re finally getting there. I think that there is an entire spectrum of levels of belief – or disbelief – in God. Depending on where one finds oneself in that spectrum determines the degree to which one might defend God or no-God and whether one can ‘switch sides’. I put that in quotes because the side you take is entirely arbitrary. Someone can belief in parts of God and not others. One can genuinely belief in the love of God and Christ but take an atheist view on the origin of the universe and life.
The question then on whether atheism – or Christianity – is falsifiable becomes null and void. One simply shifts along the spectrum of belief and disbelief and there is no all-or-nothing in it.
Quote that if you like 🙂
LikeLike
I would daresay, though, that one could be nearly at the extreme end of the spectrum while still maintaining a view of falsifiability.
I’ll quote it!
LikeLike
I won’t try and define the exact cut off point but I am quite willing to the generality of my first premise 🙂
LikeLike
I hope you’ll take a look at my post when I finish it.
LikeLike
I just hit follow on your blog 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
So you don’t think blind faith is necessary, yet you claim to know a way to disprove it? This would make you not a Christian. Is this all being clarified in your upcoming post?
LikeLike
I’m confused by your use of the word “yet” here. No, I don’t think blind faith is necessary to be a Christian. Yes, I can conceive of evidence that would falsify Christianity. What do these have to do with each other?
LikeLike
– You don’t have blind faith
– You have evidence that proves Christianity is in correct
Sorry, what is the basis of your belief? If you can logically prove it’s wrong and you don’t have faith, then I guess insanity is left?
LikeLike
“You have evidence that proves Christianity is incorrect”
No, I don’t. I didn’t say anything of the sort.
Maybe we’re confused on the definition of “falsifiability”. Falsifiability means that my beliefs are subject to investigation and could be overturned by simple evidence, were it to be discovered. It’s the opposite of blind faith, which maintains belief no matter what evidence is discovered.
Based on the available evidence from history, a divine and resurrected Jesus seems to be the most probable explanation for Christianity. This belief could be overturned given sufficient evidence to the contrary. End of story.
LikeLike
I see what you’re saying. Wow, I can’t quite understand that you believe solely on the evidence, because you don’t seem that dim. This is why people think you must be playing a game. Maybe you need to travel. Do you agree that your two states living experience of one of the most insular countries in the world may affect your outlook on life? (nevermind your very narrowly focused upbringing) You really need to get a real feel for the world to see how ridiculous your outlook is.
LikeLike
“I can’t quite understand that you believe solely on the evidence, because you don’t seem that dim.”
Well, thanks. No offense, but have you ever considered the possibility that I’ve taken a closer look at the evidence than you? Just a thought.
“Do you agree that your two states living experience of one of the most insular countries in the world may affect your outlook on life?”
Actually, I forgot about two other churches in two other states. But I’ve lived in five states and visited most of them. Plus, I have a degree in physics from a secular university, and I’ve identified the problems with my narrowly focused upbringing and rejected it. So no, I don’t think I have a narrow outlook on the world.
Maybe the problem is that you’re assuming I’m essentially evangelical? Cause that’s not the case.
LikeLike
I missed this before, but I thought I should address it really quick:
“a physicist would be hard [pressed] to devise an experiment that demonstrates that the basic scientific premise of theory confirmed by demonstration is wrong.”
Yes and no. Obviously, I couldn’t devise an experiment to disprove physics, because I’d have to use physics to do it. But physics itself is quite falsifiable. If Dumbledore showed up tomorrow and started using piertotum locomotor on all my furniture, physics would definitely be busted.
LikeLike
The paradox is so blatantly simple my head hurts. Organized religion began to flourish when hunter gatherers put down roots and someone needed to crack the whip. What better way to control a population than the fear of almighty retribution. Not to mention a tidy sum in the form of tithes to line pockets of those in control. Honestly – pure genius; the world’s first pyramid scheme.
As someone was was kicked out of Sunday school at the tender age of 5 for asking too many questions and upsetting the other children – I’ve learned a thing or two about silly questions, defending my godless position, and the futility of reasoning with the faithful.Personally – I long ago gave up on any attempt to reason with the unreasonable – it stopped being amusing, my cleverness was lost, and predictable results represented a waste of time.
That said, I still get a kick out of rational spewed from the lips of the God fearing, and laughed out load when the Vatican announced a few years ago that the possibility for alien life existed, as there was no limit to God’s power. 🙂
LikeLike
I can imagine having the same discussions over and over again would get boring. I’m new to chatting about atheism so it’s all rather entertaining. 🙂
LikeLike
Hi there, Violetwisp. What I take away mostly is the image of Zeus landing on your patio, amidst the birds, the bees and the flowers. And I don’t agree with genetic fractals here: I could imagine you turning from an atheist into a convert in five seconds flat. 🙂
LikeLike
When you put it like that, it sounds rather unrealistic. 🙂
LikeLike
We should not believe and more importantly act on what might be true, but on what we have good and reliable evidence to be true.
As long as gods decide to remain hidden, it is absurd to believe in them. However, if a god appeared to a multitude of people, how could we know it was a god? The more likelier explanations, how ever impropable, would be that this multitude of people had some other reason to think, that what they saw was actually a god. Not for example, aliens of a much higher technological level to ours, playing out on our primitive traditions about gods. It really can not be our job to invent what would convince us about the existance of a god. At least a creator god, to whom alledgedly nothing is impossible, should be able to come up with a plan to make us all believers.
What is the ultimate goal of the gods in stall for us humans? To make us all believers, or to select some of us to become believers by our own volition? Why?
Alledgedly this is achieved by some of us to believe in the unverifiable i.e. have faith. Hence, it would seem, that the entire base for faith is to select those who do not believe without solid scientifically standardized evidence, from those who would accept something as evidence, because it fits their cultural tradition, and/or because their standards for evidence are very low. Not to speak about the division between people who are affraid of what might happen in an unverifiable event of the afterlife (and direct threats concerning it) in comparrison to people who would not accept such a thing in the obvious lack of evidence for it, and sometimes after understanding, that there is overwhelming evidence against it. In this respect, it is uninportant wether the events in, for example the Jesus story, are true, or not. Because, their truth value is secondary to wether we believe the story, or not, based on the very limited evidence we have about them. To me such a demand of faith is just silly and not just at all. 😉
LikeLike
It really can not be our job to invent what would convince us about the existance of a god.
Perhaps not. But it is certainly your job to explain what would convince you of the existence of a particular god — one whose existence you deny.
Here’s the question that Ark and John are refusing to answer: What evidence would convince you that the accounts in the gospels, including the resurrection, are true?
LikeLike
*scream* We can see all the evidence that is available for the man-god and it’s not enough for anyone looking from a historical point of view to believe he was a god. End of story. No scientific rule broken. No need to *imagine* what might change the situation because it doesn’t exist in history.
So, tell me, what lack of evidence would convince you that the accounts in the gospels, including the resurrection, are untrue? (cue banging on about it like it means anything, but pretending it goes against logic to not have an answer)
LikeLike
We can see all the evidence that is available for the man-god and it’s not enough for anyone looking from a historical point of view to believe he was a god.
There are new discoveries every day. What evidence could potentially be discovered that would convince you the resurrection and gospel accounts really happened?
What lack of evidence would convince you that the accounts in the gospels, including the resurrection, are untrue?
Not lack of evidence per se. But I can certainly conceive new discoveries that would falsify Christianity. A few possibilities:
Authentic documents dating to the first two decades AD discussing a known hoax surrounding the origins of what would become Christianity.
Judean court records from around 30 AD describing the sentencing of a “Jesus of Nazareth” for petty crimes.
New manuscript evidence of an authentic Pauline or Lukan epistle revealing that Christianity was either a hoax or something totally different from what we understand it as.
Greek or Roman writings from the turn of the 0th century which talk about a cult of Christians already existing.
Your turn!
LikeLike
Violetwisp allready answered this sufficiently, and I agree with her, but I would like to add something. First of all, I am not out to deny any particular god, but all of them. Even the ones I do not know anything of. Because neither, god propositions I am familiar with, nor god propositions, that I am not familiar with, have impressed me to have faith in any of them. I see no link between any of these myths and the reality, ohter than that people tend to invent such and sometimes place the stories in actual places.
I am, so to speak, beyond the likelihood, that any additional historical information could convince me, that the miracles described by the Mahabharata, the Bible, the Koran, the Book of the Mormon, or even by such a reliable historian like Polybius, who understood the point about scientific integrity of a historian (unlike, for example, the Gospel writers), would be proven as true. It is very hard to even imagine what sort of new evidence could ever prove, or even increase the plausibility of these supernatural stories. However, if it could be falsifiably proven, that the supernatural even exists at all, that would be a start. Even that would not lead me to jump to the conclusion, that any particular historical myth was actually true, because as you know, most of them are mutually exclusive.
Now, I am pretty sure, I could recognize the kind of evidence, wich would convince me, that the Gospel stories are true, if I ever saw it, but at the moment I am not imaginative enough to come up with what that might be. All I can come up with is, that someone would have to be able to debunk all the evidence contrary to the entire concept of supernatural and then we should have some concrete additional information about the historicity of the Gospels.
In addition the discovery of the supernatural as anything other than a mythical concept, it would require me to get myself familiar with a lot more mythical stories and claims of supernatural, that I allready am, since such a revolutionary alteration of our knowledge of the reality, could mean any one of them is actually true and exclusive to the other mythical claims of the supernatural. It would be totally silly for me to accept one particular mythical claim of the supernatural only because it is the most familiar one to me, or because I happened to be born into the culture, that values one of the myths as a tradition. I would have to aquire an integrity, that would set me to objectively observe all different religions and their claims about the supernatural and compare those to this imagined discovery of the verifiable supernatural. I imagine, it would be easier for me, than to many others, as my family backround is atheistic, so that I would not have to discard a particular indoctrination in observing and comparing the supernatural claims of different cultures to the discovery of supernatural by science, but even I have my cultural heritage, wich might influence my evaluation of them.
Physicsandwhiskey, you are asking for very specific evidence against the miracle stories of your particular brand of religion. For some reason you are not asking nearly as strict evidence against any other miracle stories of other religions, are you? For example, do you accept the notion that there was a burning ship seen in the sky by the Romans to warn them about the imminent attack of Hannibal as Polybius – a contemporary to these sightings – has told us? Should we take such obvious miracle wittnessed by a multitude of people (according to Polybius) as evidence, that the Roman pantheon of gods existed at some point of history? Are there contemporary sources saying Polybius was a liar, or that he was a bit gullible? Are there contemporary sources saying, that Juppiter was a hoax? Are there contemporary sources explaining the flaming ship in the sky, as something completely else? No, but nobody has faith in the Roman pantheon anymore. Even though we can not know what the phenomenon wich Polybius describes as a burning ship might have been (or if it is just a story invented by people), we still do not take it as something supernatural, now do we?
LikeLike
You’re amazing Raut! Thank you for taking the time to patiently go through all this with poor, confused PeW.
LikeLike
Hey, thanks for your thorough and in-depth response, raut.
“I am beyond the likelihood that any additional historical information could convince me that the miracles described by the Bible, the Koran, [or] the Book of the Mormon….would be proven as true. It is very hard to even imagine what sort of new evidence could ever prove, or even increase the plausibility of these supernatural stories. However, if it could be falsifiably proven that the supernatural even exists at all, that would be a start.”
It seems to me that your estimate of the past probability of the supernatural is the key element. In other words, there’s a recognizable and accepted bias that no supernatural claims are true, and it would take a prohibitively high standard of evidence to overturn this before you could consider the truth of any specific supernatural claims. As you say a little further down, “the discovery of the supernatural would require me to get myself familiar with a lot more mythical stories and claims of supernatural than I already am.” You would need to have reason to question procedural naturalism (the paradigm of science that everything around us progresses according to consistent natural laws) before you are able to evaluate the truth of any given supernatural claim.
The problem here is that many supernatural claims do not challenge procedural naturalism. While many religions do challenge procedural naturalism, Christianity (in its most basic instantiation) does not. Christians like me believe nature was created according to consistent laws that shouldn’t be expected to change or deviate. As such, Christianity accepts procedural naturalism; accepting Christianity’s claims does not entail the rejection of procedural naturalism.
In more general terms, a commitment to naturalism can only be used to reject supernatural claims which entail the rejection of procedural naturalism. As a result, this paradigm leaves you unable to determine the truth value of supernatural claims such as Christianity.
“Physicsandwhiskey, you are asking for very specific evidence against the miracle stories of your particular brand of religion. For some reason you are not asking nearly as strict evidence against any other miracle stories of other religions, are you?”
You misunderstand. I’m not demanding these particular pieces of evidence. I’m simply giving examples of things that would change conclusions I’ve already made. I have concluded that a divine, resurrected Jesus is the most probable explanation for the history and emergence of Judeo-Christian tradition; these are simply examples of discoveries which would make a divine, resurrected Jesus a less probable (and thus unnecessary) explanation.
I’d love for you to come over to my blog and take a look at my latest post on this issue!
LikeLike
Thank you very much for the invitation to your blog pysicisandwhiskey, let us see, if I have the time for that. I actually have other things to do than to write these abominably long comments of mine. 😉
Indeed, I have a bias for not taking supernatural claims for true. I think that bias is well based on the information at hand. It is very much like my bias not to believe the moon is made of cheese regardless of how many books, poems, or people claim it is. I think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you not agree?
The resurrection of the pharaos, or Jesus and a claim that Alexander the Great was a flesh and blood son of Zeus as much as the claim, that a particular unemployed carpenter in Iudea was the flesh and blood son of the Hebrew god, are all rather extraordinary claims, even though not as extraordinary in the mind set of their contemporaries as how modern people see them. Would you not agree?
I may have misunderstood you, but you also misunderstood me. It may the language barrier between us, or my thick head… Anyway, I never claimed, that I would have to have a reason to believe there exists something supernatural, before I could evaluate any such claims about the supernatural. I do not know how you came to that conclusion, but everything you might draw from it is unavoidably false. Of course I am able to evaluate any claims of supernatural. I only evaluate them through my understanding of the natural universe. You know, the one we have actual verifiable information about. Through the scientific research results we have about such things, that are claimed to be miracles, magic, or otherwise supernatural. In my case this is mostly due to my understanding and knowledge of the sociology of past and present human cultures and archaeological evidence.
Christianity is not a very special religion in terms of supernatural claims. Every religion has it’s own special features, but being exeptionally aligned with scientific naturalism is not a special feature of Christianity. Now, it may be, that due to the close history of western scientific research, humanism and such, Christianity has developed more apologetics to cope with the information modern science and philosophy and even historical and archeological research have to offer, than some other religions, but that by no means gives it any special truth value to the claims of supernatural it traditionally presents.
Yes, you are absolutely right many supernatural beliefs do not challenge scientific world view, or naturalism. Those are mostly claims, that do not have any impact on the material universe. Magical pixies existing in a nother universe where they possibly can not influence the material universe we know do not in any way challenge naturalism. As a concept they may be perfectly natural in the other universe, but that does not mean they are true. However, any claim, that a supernatural entity, or a supernatural phenomenon, or a supernatural whatnot has an effect on the material universe, is a direct challenge to the material universe and just about anything in it we have any standards of, to call it knowledge. But the challenge is a weak one, as any such claim has miserably failed to meet even the most minor burden of proof. Correct? Or can you give an example of such an event?
I have no idea what convinced you about Christianity being true, but you do realize, that to most people, who think it is special, this is only because of their cultural indoctrination? Do you think people are less deserving of the eternal punishment, or more deserving of the eternal joy, because of their cultural indoctrination? Yet, the things you mention as examples of what might change your mind about the historicity of the Jesus story and especially some unnatural elements of it, go under the fallacy of special pleading.
In addition I must say that the entire “Judeo-Christian” tradition is an artificial term. Jews have their own religion, wich has evolved a lot during the past 2000 years and Christianity is a religion based on Jewish tradition, but a separate entity all together. As far as I know there are no forms of Christianity, that are not based on Judaism, so asserting them as one tradition is a bit silly, though used a lot in certain type of zionistic politics, wich have finally united some fanatics of both of these religions in our days. After centuries of rather unhealthy forms of segragation. Without the political agenda one could as well speak of all the “religions of the book”, or Abrahamic religions, but that would include Islam, wich seems not to be in fashion in the current political athmosphere.
Violetwisp, thank you once again for your praise. I doubt my words will have much impact on physicsandwhiskey, but it is interresting to find out how an intelligent person excuses his irrational beliefs i.e. faith. Or should we just call it the emotional part of belief?
LikeLike
“Indeed, I have a bias for not taking supernatural claims for true. I think that bias is well based on the information at hand. Do you not agree?”
I absolutely agree. As long as we recognize and accept our biases, there’s nothing wrong with them. In fact, I have almost the exact same bias as you: based on the general predictability of nature and the success of science, any claims that nature isn’t predictable and testable through science are properly extraordinary claims and would require extraordinary evidence. This would include aural sensing, faith healing, feng shui, Scientology auditing, and much more.
As you properly point out, magical pixies from another dimension don’t challenge procedural naturalism. But this is a trivial case. Because belief in magical pixies from another dimension is unfalsifiable, it doesn’t need to be challenged and can merely be dismissed out of hand.
However, I think there’s another distinction that needs to be made. Certain supernatural claims do exist which are both falsifiable (unlike our pixies) and consistent with procedural naturalism.
When I assert that a young Jewish rabbi in the first century was killed and rose from the dead because he was the incarnation of deity, I’m not challenging procedural naturalism. I’m not saying that the universe functions in any way other than what we can observe and test and analyze. And so my bias of procedural naturalism remains untouched. It doesn’t come into play.
That’s my difficulty here. The resurrection is not a claim that all our day-to-day observations about the predictability of the universe are false. It’s a historical claim, just the same as claiming that Caesar crossed the Rubicon or that Arthur Pendragon fought at Mount badon. Granted, it’s a little more unprecedented than either of those claims, but it’s still essentially a historical claim.
“Christianity has developed more apologetics to cope with the information modern science and philosophy have to offer, but that by no means gives it any special truth value to the claims of supernatural it traditionally presents.”
Certainly not. But it does mean that Christianity’s claims about history cannot be handwaved on the basis of procedural naturalism, since it doesn’t conflict with procedural naturalism.
“I never claimed, that I would have to have a reason to believe there exists something supernatural, before I could evaluate any such claims about the supernatural.”
Yet that’s where we ended up. The resurrection is a claim about a supernatural event in history, but you’re saying you couldn’t consider it unless you first see evidence of the supernatural in your day-to-day life. Do you see where I’m coming from?
I understand the hesitancy to accept a historical claim about something you’ve never seen in person. I’ve never seen a nuclear winter with my own eyes….indeed, no person in recorded history has. Yet the concentration of iridium and the apparent extinction event at the K-T boundary leads me to infer that there definitely was a bollide impact resulting in a nuclear winter approx. 66 Ma ago. It’s the most probable explanation for the evidence, even if I haven’t seen an example of a nuclear winter in real life.
Likewise, I’d argue that the emergence and endurance of a faith that defies understand mechanisms for the emergence of religion, coupled with the available textual and archeological evidence, is best explained by the historical resurrection, despite the fact that it’s an event we’ve never directly observed.
“Any claim that a supernatural entity has an effect on the material universe, is a direct challenge to the material universe. Correct?”
Yes, the claim that a supernatural entity “has” an effect on the material universe challenges naturalism. However, the claim that a supernatural entity “has had” an effect on the material universe does not challenge naturalism. Does the distinction make sense?
“The things you mention as examples of what might change your mind about the historicity of the Jesus story and especially some unnatural elements of it, go under the fallacy of special pleading.”
How so?
“it is interresting to find out how an intelligent person excuses his irrational beliefs i.e. faith. Or should we just call it the emotional part of belief?”
I’d point out that I’m emotionally inclined to atheism, so that’s probably not it. 😉
LikeLike
Raut, I believe PeW when he says his irrational beliefs aren’t based on emotion. I think you actually mentioned earlier on that it’s simply cultural indoctrination. Although his failure to recognise this is baffling.I think he operates on a switch basis and one day the switch will suddenly go off and he won’t see any logical reason to believe in Christianity. It’s a question of moving the neural pathways and it takes time. All these conversations that seem to go nowhere are sinking into his granite skull. 🙂
LikeLike
Violetwisp, I do not mean by any means that basing beliefs on emotions is somehow wrong. And my guess is that you agree with me on this. After all, our understanding of ethics is based not only on reason, but on emotions also. On such emotional responses as the empathy, compassion and sense of justice at least. But the important thing is to understand the logic of the emotions involved. At least physicsandwhiskey presents himself as a seeker of the truth. I do agree with you, that it is propably a cultural indoctrination he trips over on this issue as he refuses to discuss that problem. It is a complicated matter.
Pysicsandwhiskey, I have high regard on you, that you have a certain amount of integrity to question your base values. We are pretty much the same, in that both of us are able to reason our own cultural heritage. This is a trap for the intelligent mind, that one is so skilled in using one’s own brain, that we have the ability to justify our values by our reason, even if our reasoning was flawed. The most important thing is to recognize our own biases, and to question our perception of the reality. At least that has served me well.
Now, you keep asserting, that certain supernatural claims are falsifiable and not in conflict with the natural universe. However, even though I asked you to present an example of such, you did not. Would you be so kind as to present such an example, as I am totally unaware of any such, exept the ones wich fit in the gaps of our knowledge. Can you actually present the claims of Christianity that are both exclusive to it and do not conflict with natural universe? Or at least the most compelling one, in your opinion?
I like your chosen analogies about history. Now Caesar crossing the Rubicon is a confirmed historical story about an actual historical character. It is a story that meets the required standard in historical integrity. While the story about king Arthur at the battle of Mount Baden is not about an actual historical character, nor an historical event. That does not mean that there could not have been such a person as king Arthur and that he once fought in such a battle, but even if we could verify Arthur to have been an actual historical character, there is no reason to think, that he actually had a magical sword. Infact we have every reason to think that the character of Arthur and some of the other key characters and events in the stories might be based on real historical characters and events, but that does not mean Merlin the wizard could do magic as in altering the reality with supernatural powers. Does it?
Rising from the dead is in direct contradiction with what we know about death. Cell decompositon and the end of brainfunctions clearly indicate, that a resurrection requires a lot of what we understand about the natural universe to be altered in a way we do not have any information how it even could be possible. That does not mean, that such an event is totally impossible, it only means that it is so unlikely, that accepting it with the information at hand would be silly. Unless of course, and once again, we are talking about faith, in the sense of accepting a particular claim with lower demand of evidence, than what we would otherwise require. That would be then special pleading, right?
If we should evaluate contesting claims, that an actual resurrection happened, or that someone made a story about it up, or that this is what some ignorant people honestly thought happened, it is rather natural to conclude, that the most unlikely explanation would be that an actual resurrection happened. Note that this does not even require a scientific or naturalistic world view. All it requires is that the peson evaluating the story is not a Christian. Further more, if we accepted such an exeptional claim at face value, then we would have to accept every other equally exeptional claim. If we do not, then we are guilty of special pleading.
Archaeology is my field and, I would like to point out, that it does not provide any evidence at all to support the claim, that Jesus actually resurrected. It does not even provide any evidence at all that Jesus was an actual person.
The idea of a nuclear winter is supported by science, while resurrection is not.
By referring to special pleading, I mean the fact that you seem to demand evidence that was counter evidence of your supernatural claim, while you still have to present the evidence for the supernatural event you believe in. You would not demand such from any other supernatural claims by any other religion, in order to discard them, would you? Now, I understand you gave those as examples of what would change your mind, but if these are minimum requirements for you to change your mind, it seems like you are asserting a special pleading fallacy. Because in any case of argumentation, if we do not require the same standards for example equally exeptional claims, then we are guilty of special pleading. Correct?
LikeLike
Pingback: Faith and falsifiability | Science and Other Drugs
Wrote a response here.
LikeLike
Violet, PLEASE stop wasting your time on that physicsandwhiskey crank. He understands neither science nor theology. He’s just looking for attention.
LikeLike
Blog police! We’re the blog police! Yaaaay!
LikeLike
(Have you been drinking alcohol? Out of character swearing, shouting and joking. Hmmmm.)
LikeLike
No, but I rather feel like it.
Just a long day and I’m tired out, so Jim’s assholery presented a nice target.
And what….I don’t typically joke? Oh dear. This must be remedied.
LikeLike
I don’t know, pew, you really sounded upset to me. Would you like a hug?
LikeLike
Free hugs from the blog police? Yay!
LikeLike
I take it neither of you can be the bigger one that doesn’t need the last word.
LikeLike
Not at this point, nah. Like I said, long day.
LikeLike
Wow, you really wound him up! Ark will be jealous, he’s never managed to extract rude words from PeW. You probably have a point though. I don’t understand science or theology either, maybe that’s why I enjoy (to a certain extent) his funny view on life. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, Violet, I have that effect on some people. 🙂
LikeLike