Atheists should shut up!

So, if a belief is unfalsifiable, it is necessarily useless? I must be able to demonstrate to others anything I hold to be true - or they must have some way to test it - for such a belief to be useful to me? I don’t think that holds. I understand how it might be useless to others.
Then we need to be 1) confident in our ability to know when something can or cannot be falsified (at some future point in time also, for example when technology changes) 2) confident that we could falsify or confirm all memories a person has that may or may not be a part of useful heuristics about the world. I can’t see a way to be sure about either of those things.

I also notice that people, I mean, everyone, works every day with untested often unfalsiable heuristics about how to handle life. Now, of course, many of these heuristics are poor, but animals have evolved to use unverified and often unfalsifiable ideas because they were good adapations.

Just because it makes sense for the scientific community to not work with unfalsiable ideas since they don’t have a good way to decide if such ideas should move into scientific consensus, this doesn’t mean that all unfalsifiable beliefs are useless.

Yes I guess, in isolation, worthless. There’s a difference though if you suddenly jump from my ‘worthless’ to your ‘useless’.

Obviously, publically proclaiming an unfalsifiable belief - a belief or disbelief in god - isn’t useless if there is benefit in simply being seen to hold such a belief. Dawkins might send me a christmas present, or the pope might induct me into the illuminati.

And ‘empirically’ doesn’t just mean ‘testable’ it also means ‘experience-able’ ie. Though I can’t prove gravity - I don’t have a lab, equipment or frankly, enough maths lol - I can experience it consistantly by falling over a lot.

I cannot however prove god in a lab, nor consistantly experience it.

One can have correct beliefs that are impossible to falsify, at least now, given what we can and cannot do, and these can be useful, even in isolation. I added more above.

I could have heard some guy muttering how he hates women and one day he’s going to fucking rape one. Perhaps I misheard him, certainly others might doubt what I heard if the guy is an unstanding citizen. They cannot falsify the belief, not confirm it. I however can move forward with that belief and tell my wife not to accept a job working for the guy.

If the theists are right or some of them are in their specific beliefs about God and they are in fact, some of them, in contact with God, this might be very useful to the sense of well being or perhaps even the afterlife experiences, even if this is all not falsifiable or verifiable for others. And if, as an agnostic, you are not sure what is the case, then you cannot know if it is useful or not.

There are examples even in the history of science where claims were made that were not falsifiable, at the time, though decades later they were now verifiable, but were true and useful.

We have our own experiences. What we can prove to others or disprove in front of others is not the full set of things that are useful.

Lol, we both edited like crazy.

As I said - empirically also means experientally as well as through theory and logic.

Forgive me, but this is a bad example, or at least a bad comparison with the unfalsifiabilty of god.

In your situation there are many ways to investigate empirically. An outside observer could note that between your experience with this man and afterwards, something occurred that produced an effect. In this case a switch to mistrust. And infer that something did happen. They can also note that the guy you heard has a mouth and vocal chords, and you share a common language, and you have functionimg ears, so such an event was possible.

Then, they could hack this guy’s email, investigate his contacts, past behaviour, etc.etc. The results of which would lend weight to your experience either way.

None of this applies to god. God has no email, we don’t know even if he has a mouth. All past records of god’s behaviour are at several removes - heresay, rumour. There is no empirical point of traction.

First off, I have to start with situations that are more likely to be agreed on to challenge what is presented as a rule. If it is a rule it must apply to all situations. If it doesn’t then more investigation needs to take place. I can’t start with God or even ghosts. If the rule has a problem with one situation, then more discussion is possible and the rule is problematic.

Or not. We both know that it such unfalsifiable situation are ones we encounter all the time in our lives. Sure if I can hire a team to investigate one friend’s accusation against another, I might be able to give some evidence. But generally we are not in such a position. Such a claim is unfalsifiable. And if we find no sexist or violent musings in his hacked accounts we have not falsified our friend’s story.

Actually there is. You could engage in the practices of the religion and see if you have experiences that lead you, you as an individual, come to believe the same thing. Often in these discussions both Christian theists and non.theists (given the dominance of certain Christian models and ideas like ‘leap of faith’ and the idea of faith in general) seem to think theism is non-empirical. But this is very Western and non-indigneous and even in those traditions only one kind of theisms. Most theism have empirical components, and some center themselves on that.

And I get it, those experiences, those empirical facets, are not good evidence for non-experiencers. PRECISELY. We cannot falisfy them, but then, an agnostic cannot possibly rule out that those experiences and the beliefs built from them are not useful.

Of course engaging in the practices might require decades of work. I am not trying to convince you that you should. But there are direct parallels to what one could with my over heard mutterer sitution. Neither process of investigation need provide proof that a court or Nature Journal would accept as scientific. And yet, the beliefs and experiences might be useful, despite a lack of falsifiabity.

Your argument does not attack my example on falsifiability grounds. It may be useful and unfalsifiable.

Further science has often resisted falsification or advanced despite a lack of it. There are also other problems with falsification…
iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/#H3
scroll down to number 3.
blogs.scientificamerican.com/th … scontents/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#CritEval

The science itself works from axioms that are not falsifiable. Take physicalism itself. What is consider physical has expanded to include fields, masspless particles, things that are in superposition, dark energy and more things that do not match the original ideas of what is physical. Whatever is determined to be real is then called physical. It’s useful to do this, but in the end it is a metaphysical claim which keeps moving the goalposts.

Then, realism itself is not falsifiable.

And then, things get falsified, and then unfalsified.

I don’t think the determination ‘that can or cannot be falsified’ is easy to verify. How do we know what we will be able to falsify or what will turn out not to have been falsifiable. We have no complete knowledge with which to assess an assertion on this issue.

Oh, sure, we operate from beliefs that are - to us as individuals - at that point in time, completely opaque, all the time. I don’t understand how this tablet pc works, there may well be goblins inside using nanoscopic pigeons to carry my messages to this magical forum.

But my experience of it is consistant. I type, type appears. Same with gravity, I jump, I come back down.

Science also advances based on observations that are unfalsifiable logically and/or theoretically for as long as those observations are consistant with preceding events. The ‘repeatability’ clause for experiments. Do A, get B. This is science:

Dumbass 1. Holy fuck, did you see that…?
Dumbass 2. Whut…?
Dumbass 1. I did this, and that happened.
Dumbass 2. Whoa dude, do it again.
Dumbass 1. K, watch.
Dumbass 2. Holy shit that’s weird.
Dumbass 1. You try. Do this this and this.
Dumbass 2. Whoa, I see what you mean. What is that about…?
Dumbass 1. Dunno. Better come up with a theory to 'splain this shit.
Dumbass 2. Yeah, this consistently repeatable example of a phenomenon inconsistent with my previous experience of the world is freaking me out dude…

Doesn’t matter if realism is falsifiable, only that it is consistent to an observer who experiences it.

And that is the huge difference between things like god, and this tablet pc. Consistency.

Believeing in the same thing, and experiencing the same thing, are massively different concepts. If I heat water to boiling point, I see steam. Liquid to gas. Amazing. You do the same, wow, you also see steam. Hallelujah. But…

A goes to church, god talks to them. B goes to church, nothing happens. C takes a bunch of drugs, sees god. D takes a bunch of drugs, sees his mum chasing him with a pickaxe shaped like tinkywinky from the teletubbies. E prays for intervention, gets well. F prays for intervention, dies of cancer anyway.

There is no way, okay, that we have discovered ‘so far’ in what…? 200,000 years, to consistently experience god. As in ‘do A, recieve god’. Actually, I dunno, maybe I’ve been out of the loop too long. Do you know a 100%, sure-fire way of experiencing god…? No cheating, it has to be the exact same experience of god as you would get if you and I followed the exact same sequence of behaviour or thought process or drugs or transcranial magnetic stimulation or argh, yoga pose or diet or magic words or fungal infection or near-fatal accident or tantric sexual marathon.

If not, then the observational and experiential avenues of approaching god seem closed to us. Half of empiricism gone out the window. We are left then, with theoretical and logical approaches.

And pure theory and logic fall into the catagory to which falsifiabilty applies.

I never said they weren’t useful, that’s another arguement entirely. I said they were worthless, as foundations for belief. Look:

A one dollar bill, in isolation, purely as a object, is kinda worthless, but as part of the monetary system - which accepts it as viable currency for transactions - very useful. Same with a dis/belief in god. In isolation, a person believeing or disbelieving in god is not particualarly useful at all to them, but in the context of a religious/secular society - that accepts simply holding this type of belief either way as having value - very useful. But in this situation, the actual veracity/falsifiabilty/whatever of the belief isn’t important, only that it is held, shared, and obeyed. And, to a lesser extent, is a reliable predictor of behaviour. But that’s yet another argument lol.

This is it.

Birth, life, death.

Birds in the sky, fish in the steams, the wind in the grass, the ground under your feet …

Do you know a 100% surefire way to experience lucid dreams? that everyone will have the same experience? Well, it has been scientifically demonstrated that many can do this. What if it has elements of skill and attitude involved? What if not everyone can? Does this mean it is not real? No. What if you have to want to? What if different individuals require different amounts of effort? or the right coach.

Experiments of things scientific consensus consider real do not have 100 percent results. There are always anomolies or at least many things with in testing are still considered real.

Or, no one can become a great basketball player by training because not everyone can.

Or, no one can become capable of Eureka moments through long mathematical study, since not everyone can.

Somehow you conclude that because not everyone can do something, then empirical approachs are closed to us(???) No, they would be closed to some. Or seemingly closed, since attitudes and effort and interest and so on would be hard to measure.

Me:

You:

So,you are arguing that some things that are useful are worthless?

You can’t even know if the belief is true. You can’t know if their experiences would also lead to your belief. You can’t know if their beliefs are based on true and accurately interpreted experiences and also lead to positve changes and actions (such as maintaing their practices or whatever). As an agnostic, and given the problem of other minds, you cannot know these things.

So, you cannot know if they are worthless or not. And you also cannot know if one day they can be confirmed or falsified. Who knows what science will one day be able to demonstrate

Like setting an egg on its tip.

Or hitting a baseball out of the stadium.

Lucid dreaming is by these measures very easy to induce. But indeed you need to want to do it.

I am not spoiling this by giving out methods. But here is a video where I think I do.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4z5PESmRo8[/youtube]

Easy for some, not for others. And for a long time they did not have a way to prove it was real to people like Tab. Then they developed a method. People forget we are in the middle of learning about things.

I was born, don’t remember it. Life, living it, haven’t experienced god. Death, I’ll let you know, or not.

Saw a bird, it was a bird. Not god. Saw a fish, not god. Felt wind, not god. Saw grass, not god. Walked on ground, not god.

Phyllo, seriously, what a giant pile of shit that post was. Why did you bother…? What purpose did it serve…?

Hey Karpel, Sorry, but I always know the debate’s over when I can’t be bothered to do anything but quote everything and add comments. Despite that, thanks, it was a good conversation while it lasted.

Yeah. I read that and just saw, “Okay Tab, you’ve reduced me to babbling about ‘mer-mer you don’t know nuffin’ you wrong brah’.” It is possible to come to reasonable beliefs based on imperfect but observationally consistent knowledge. It is impossible to come to reasonable beliefs when literally there is no consistent theoretical or observational knowledge whatsoever. I know this, and you know this. That you can’t face admitting it is your problem.

Anyway, cheers. Fun while it lasted.

Oh and,

Nice. If you can’t beat 'em, generalize them away. Low blow bro.

Tab, here’s the problem for me.

You’re a scattered poster and you are shifting onus.
I point out problems with YOUR claim that no unfalsifiable claim has value (they are worthless according to you).

And in posts like this…

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190138&p=2760673#p2760664
You are demanding that religious practices must be valuable to EVERYONE. That the methods must be foolproof for everyone, which modern medicine does not achieive,
but more importantly, it is an onus shift.

I am saying that your belief, that all unfalsiable beliefs are worthless is not something you could possibly know.

And then you go all over the place. Now I contributed to this by taking a number of angles on falsification and also by pursuing a number of angels or examples. So, I bear some responsibility.

But to me this kind of flailing, onus shifting is just not worth my time because you are evading actually supporting your own statement. And it can’t be defended. And no one follows it, though albeit many people with beliefs of less weight than that of a deity. An agnostic, who does not know if God exists, by his own assertion, cannot possibly then know if some theists are experiencing God and learning from God and getting benefits from that deity. This does not in any way represent an argument for why that agnostic should take up a religion or believe in God. It is not a proof of God. It just means

you
can’t
as
an
agnostic
rule out
these things
as
worthless.

And then your even broader claim that no unfalsifiable belief could be worth anything, is confused. Because all humans work on beliefs that they have not checked to see if they are falsifiable or if they will be falsified via testing.

Now if all you mean by ‘worthless’ is that other people do not get strong evidence from unfalsifiable beliefs, well, even that fails and it is a poor use of the word ‘worthless’. Because if someone meets someone who, for example, seems at peace and finds out this has to do with their belief in God and practices, and that person takes up said practices and comes to belief in God, they did not work from strong evidence, but nevertheless may, for all you know, have come in contact with a deity and received benefits, in even deeper practices, via the assertions of and experience the first theist. Of course Nature journal, given its epistemology, which is a very effective one for creating scientific knowledge, has not burden to publish such a story as a scientific paper. But that has nothing to do with your claim that such things are worthless. You need to be agnostic about that also. Or you are not an agnostic, you are a specific kind of atheist who is claiming to know a lot of things, including other minds and what is possible for a deity should one exist.

And the general assertion that unfalsifiable claims are worthless does not even hold in the history of science and has strong critics within both science and philosophy. It’s not what has happened, unfalsifiable claims have in fact helped advance science at times, and well, the other stuff in the articles earlier linked.

People throw falsifiablity around like it is one of the tend commandments, especially in philosophy forums, but it isn’t.

Agnosticism is not the middle ground between theist and atheist. Agnosticism dismisses both stances as equally futile. When it comes to god You can not know. And so I walk into a room where a theist and an atheist are trapped, bound to talk round and round for all eternity, and walk out. It’s that simple.

Everything else is up for grabs. I am free to ‘know’ other things in the way everyone else does.

So far, I have said this.

Theism involves belief. Atheism involves the opposite belief. They are however, both beliefs.

Both of these beliefs are based on pure theory and logic, because there is no observable, or testable empiric data that is consistent for all, or available to all. Even after 200,000 years of human exsitence. Please note here, I do not ask about value, or usefulness, both terms which you introduced, I only ask for consistency of experience, consistency of availability.

The realm of pure logic and theory falls under the jurisdiction of falsifiability. If a proposition cannot be proven false by any irrefutable, or even reasonable means, its claim to truth is moot.

Therefore, both beliefs are worthless. Hold either, hold neither, doesn’t matter. Unless of course, simply being seen in society to possess these type of beliefs has worth. But this is socially attributed worth, not worth implicit to the belief itself.

Unlike scientific principles, which even if unfalsifiable at the time of discovery, lead to directly derived applications in the physical world, which are observed to work, and possess consistence both in their generation and effects enabling further reseach and the hope of resolution in the foreseeable future, theistic and atheistic principles have no directly attributable applications in the real world, and thus are stuck. Forever. Barring deus ex machina of course, over which we can have no control, rendering any human effort expended on this topic of discourse, wasted. The bus comes when it comes.

And that’s it.

And, of course, everyone has and bases choices on beliefs that they cannot and/or have not bothered to falsify or see if they can. Beliefs about the opposite sex, about friendship, about realism, about politics, about what to do in relation to a bad boss, about how to prioritize activities and on and on and on. There are philosophical assumptions, including metaphysical ones, that everyone uses (though they vary individual to individual, that have not been tested and some cannot be tested. There are more navigating the world beliefs and assumptions also that have not been tested and some cannot be that people use. We rely on intuition for all sorts of things also, or rather this is another way of looking at it. We have to and many of them are useful and many are likely correct AND if one has an instrumental epistemology clearly are correct and many are problematic. But we have to do this, because we have only so much time. But for critiics of atheists it is AS IF this is not the case and a rule is produced. But no one follows that rule. No one.

Atheism is simply a skeptical position on the existence of deities that are non falsifiable
Agnostic atheists do not believe in God but also know that he cannot really be disproven

God either exists or does not exist and that is the only valid statement that I or anyone can truly make
I do not believe in him but that is because I do not regard belief as a reliable metric for objective truth

Tab -

“When it comes to god You can not know”

That’s a fundie position.

At best you might claim “I can not know” but that too is prescriptive. Pure non-assuming skepticism says only “I don’t know at this moment”. Except when the person does know.

Any truth claim requires evidence otherwise it cannot be demonstrated even if it is true
Arguments from emotion are logical fallacies and therefore cannot be accepted as valid

Because if the only place where your absolute truth exists is in your own mind then it cannot be objectively true only subjectively so
This can be demonstrated when two are convinced their respective truth is the real one even though they are mutually incompatible

Then I’m a fundie. :smiley:

Karpel keeps using mundane examples insisting that they are comparable, so meh. I’ll go talk to a wall, or actually just stop talking. I don’t believe either of you have really really considered what a being claiming to be god would have to go through to prove irrefutably to a human existing in this universe that their claim was true, but tbh. it’s not worth the brain cells.

Gimme a scenario if you like, I’ll shoot it down.