How to disprove things?

[Darth Wong]

In numerous recent threads on this forum, debate has raged between theists asking atheists to disprove their claims, and atheists pointing out that the theists are either rejecting their disproofs or ignoring them.

It has been shown quite conclusively that the standards of disproof normally used in fields such as criminal investigation or scientific analysis are not accepted by theists. Let us run through those methods:

1. Show that there is no evidence for useless or untestable items being proposed as explanations. This is commonly used in order to reject fantastic alibis in criminal investigations (eg- "Aliens planted the cocaine on me, officer") and also to reject useless extra terms in science (eg- "Earthquakes are caused by tectonic plate movements ... and God"). It is based on the logical principle of parsimony.
   
2. Show that the idea contradicts well-established and demonstrated scientific principles. This is used to reject stupid claims in criminal investigations (eg- "I don't care how long those skid-marks are, officer; I wasn't speeding") and also to reject poorly constructed scientific arguments (eg- "The Grand Canyon was formed by the Great Flood rather than erosion, even though this unthinkably violent scouring of the land did not even remove so much as the topsoil layer from other parts of the world").
   
3. Show that the idea contradicts itself, ie- it is not logically consistent. This is used to reject criminal alibis when one part of a suspect's testimony contradicts another, and it is also used to reject poorly constructed scientific arguments (eg- "Evolutionary speciation cannot happen because it is impossible ... but it happened after Noah debarked, which is how we got millions of species from the small number of animals he had on the Ark" (don't laugh; this is the official position of ICR, the Institute for Creation Research)).

These methods are widely used and logically sound. However, they are all categorically rejected. Every time a theist asks someone to disprove one of his claims, all three of these methods are usually raised and then rejected.

So I can only ask: what do theists consider a valid method of disproving something, since they reject all of the methods that are normally used?

[God]

It's impossible to make them admit that they are wrong. The idea is to make their argument look rediculous so that everyone else sees that they are wrong.

[LoZz]

tbh i think we should ban all relgious related threads for a month, see where that gets us.

[Darth Wong]

tbh i think we should ban all relgious related threads for a month, see where that gets us.

I would be willing to bet money that most religious people would be incapable of discussing ethics without invoking religion. It's pretty easy for someone like me to do so; after all, my ethics codes do not rely on religion. But it's hard for them.

So the religious people would either have to avoid the forum entirely or they would try to participate in ethics debates and eventually bring up their religious beliefs.

[Punkus]

I would be willing to bet money that most religious people would be incapable of discussing ethics without invoking religion. It's pretty easy for someone like me to do so; after all, my ethics codes do not rely on religion. But it's hard for them.

On the same token, it would be nigh impossible for you to discuss ethics that are based on religion - or, if you prefer, a "fundamentalistic belief." I realize you are talking from a logical standpoint; I am merely playing 'devil's advocate' and reminding you that your proposition might be as ridiculous to a theist as my theoretical proposition would be to you. Don't misinterpret me though; I agree with your statement.

I must suggest that if we wish to truly call any debate such as this a learned discussion, we shouldn't forget the philosophies of Utilitarianism, or Kantianism and the Categorical Imperative. Where have these philosophical lines of thinking gone? They are very important to anyone who wishes to ernestly debate the validity of ethics. Most people of any professional standing who have delved into this debate have included these theories. Kantian ethics, whether anyone realizes it or not, actually speaks to the heart of what most people talk about when they cite a religious imperative. That is, if they really understand what they are talking about. :original:

Darth, I have to admit that while I am glad to see you are a fan of science, I fear that if you have any desire to "convert" a theist to your viewpoint, you will not succeed given your current manner of presentation. Your posts often have merit, but at the same time most are(in my opinion) presented in a somewhat scathing manner. Please understand, I say this not to simply be critical, but because I too would like to help everyone replace irrational and potentially dangerous ideas - of any sort - with more reasonable and productive thinking.

I often find myself wondering what right we have to change anyone's core beliefs. How can I even presume that my way of thinking is better than someone else's? Since I strive to be a reasonable, fair person, I can never really judge someone as inferior based on thoughts alone, if I wish to remain fair and reasonable.

As I have said before, all we have any right to do is prevent real harm. If a person chooses not to listen, it is not something we should dwell too long on, nor is it something we should condemn them for until they act innappropriately on their beliefs. It is only in our actions that we can be judged, if at all.

I will continue to post in threads like this because it is a chance to both express my views and polish my own knowledge and skill in discussion. This is no different than why I post in any thread on this forum.

If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.
-Mother Theresa

[DrWho]

Darth, I have to admit that while I am glad to see you are a fan of science, I fear that if you have any desire to "convert" a theist to your viewpoint, you will not succeed given your current manner of presentation. Your posts often have merit, but at the same time most are(in my opinion) presented in a somewhat scathing manner. Please understand, I say this not to simply be critical, but because I too would like to help everyone replace irrational and potentially dangerous ideas - of any sort - with more reasonable and productive thinking.

I don't think he's trying to convert people but trying to get them to admit they don't know what they are talking about, seeing the no nonsense approach of his own website and the type of person he (tries to) debate against/with on the religious experience.
That said the discussions of his group with the group around Honor & Glory the last few days is an (almost) examplary case of what St. Aquinas, considered the greatest theologican of the RK church, warned against.

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."

Note that St. Aquinas lived in the 13th century and that you would probably want to subsitute Christian for Catholic to bring the quote upto date with the current world.

[Sam]

That said the discussions of his group with the group around Honor & Glory the last few days is an (almost) examplary case of what St. Aquinas, considered the greatest theologican of the RK church, warned against.

Note that St. Aquinas lived in the 13th century and that you would probably want to subsitute Christian for Catholic to bring the quote upto date with the current world.

Poisoning the well against anyone who realizes how ridiculous some of the bible stories are. Meh.

OT: I'm looking at this guy's wiki, he has some odd "proofs" of a designer, and nothing to suggest that it is the biblical one.

Aquinas's Five Ways perhaps the most famous feature of his whole corpus of philosophical writings, continue to be well-used as some of the most well-known and influential theistic proofs formulated. Aquinas's arguments are mostly cosmological in nature.[7]

1. Motion proves the existence of an Unmoved Mover.[8]
2. Effects proves the existence of a First Cause.[9]
3. Contingency proves the existence of a Necessary Being.[10]
4. Degrees of perfection prove the existence of a Most Perfect Being.[11]
5. Design proves the existence of a Designer.[12] (This argument is teleological in nature.)

I've only seen numbers 5 and 2 used before, the others strike me as odd.

[Darth Wong]

On the same token, it would be nigh impossible for you to discuss ethics that are based on religion - or, if you prefer, a "fundamentalistic belief." I realize you are talking from a logical standpoint; I am merely playing 'devil's advocate' and reminding you that your proposition might be as ridiculous to a theist as my theoretical proposition would be to you. Don't misinterpret me though; I agree with your statement.

True; I was just pointing out the problem with someone's suggestion that we temporarily ban religious discussions in this forum.

I must suggest that if we wish to truly call any debate such as this a learned discussion, we shouldn't forget the philosophies of Utilitarianism, or Kantianism and the Categorical Imperative. Where have these philosophical lines of thinking gone? They are very important to anyone who wishes to ernestly debate the validity of ethics. Most people of any professional standing who have delved into this debate have included these theories. Kantian ethics, whether anyone realizes it or not, actually speaks to the heart of what most people talk about when they cite a religious imperative. That is, if they really understand what they are talking about. :original:

Of course, as an engineer I actually swore an oath to uphold a code of ethics which is basically utilitarian in nature, so my response there would be predictable

Darth, I have to admit that while I am glad to see you are a fan of science, I fear that if you have any desire to "convert" a theist to your viewpoint, you will not succeed given your current manner of presentation. Your posts often have merit, but at the same time most are(in my opinion) presented in a somewhat scathing manner. Please understand, I say this not to simply be critical, but because I too would like to help everyone replace irrational and potentially dangerous ideas - of any sort - with more reasonable and productive thinking.

To be honest, I don't debate theists with the intent of converting them. Theists have demonstrated over centuries of vicious infighting that they can withstand even outright violence as a conversion method, so debate isn't going to overcome a strong belief. No, my objective is generally to simply show a third-party observer that the theist must resort to dishonest, ludicrous, scientifically laughable, or logically fallacious methods in order to defend his belief. In short, the idea is to show neutral or passive observers that the theist position is weak, so that they will be motivated to re-examine their own attitudes. The hardcore theist himself is virtually impossible to reach via any means, so I don't even really worry about that.

You see, my operating theory is that in any forum like this, the majority of the population is somewhere in the middle. That's why most of them keep silent on such debates. But they watch, and they see, and they notice that the theists seem to be using the weaker, more dishonest or fallacious tactics while the atheists seem to have a more logical approach. So every time a theist uses some dishonest tactic against me, I don't have to worry about the fact that I'm not convincing him because his dishonesty actually works in my favour. It shows other people that dishonesty is what a hardcore theist needs in order to defend his position. It sows seeds of doubt. It makes people ask: "why do the atheists always seem to have a better handle on science and logic when the two sides clash"? Even if they think "I know the atheists are wrong, but they sure do seem smart", it serves a similar purpose; it lays a little tiny seed of doubt that might blossom someday. That's all I ever expect to accomplish; I'm not out to actually force people to convert; just make them have some healthy doubt.

I often find myself wondering what right we have to change anyone's core beliefs. How can I even presume that my way of thinking is better than someone else's? Since I strive to be a reasonable, fair person, I can never really judge someone as inferior based on thoughts alone, if I wish to remain fair and reasonable.

Science has a pretty good track record of improving humanity's lot in life. I'd say that this represents real evidence that the empirical mindset is better than the faith-based mindset.

As I have said before, all we have any right to do is prevent real harm. If a person chooses not to listen, it is not something we should dwell too long on, nor is it something we should condemn them for until they act innappropriately on their beliefs. It is only in our actions that we can be judged, if at all.

Mind you, it can be shown that religious beliefs cause real harm. For example, all of the statistics show that "abstinence-only" sex education programs are actually correlated with higher teen pregnancy rates, not lower. Only religious people advocate such irrational nonsense. Similarly, there's the whole "condoms in Africa" thing with respect to AIDS.

I will continue to post in threads like this because it is a chance to both express my views and polish my own knowledge and skill in discussion. This is no different than why I post in any thread on this forum.

Of course

EDIT: I just remembered a recent debate I had with an Amway salesman, and it was very similar. Of course I had no hope of convincing the Amway salesman that his business model was crap and that I shouldn't sign up. But I wasn't really trying to convince him. I was trying to convince other people sitting at the same table. And the more he tried to argue with me, the more he demonstrated that I was right. He might never have changed, but he wasn't really the target audience of my argument. It's the same with hardcore theists.

[Punkus]

Darth,

I agree with your last post a great deal. There are only a few things I wish to comment on.

No, my objective is generally to simply show a third-party observer that the theist must resort to dishonest, ludicrous, scientifically laughable, or logically fallacious methods in order to defend his belief. In short, the idea is to show neutral or passive observers that the theist position is weak, so that they will be motivated to re-examine their own attitudes.

The idea that debates are more for passive observers is indeed a solid one, and I admire anyone who believes this. Still, there are a couple points that I think should be made here if one truly wishes to influence those who passively observe. The first thing I refer to has to do with the following observation:

Theists have demonstrated over centuries of vicious infighting that they can withstand even outright violence as a conversion method

There is a potential problem when discussion might be percieved more as an attack than simply a courteous attempt at debate. There is the chance that the result may in fact help influence those who are on the fence towards religion rather than away from it. Remember, not all people are completely reasonable, religious or not, and the problem of religious thinking is not so much the irrationality of the doctrine, but rather the inherent irrationality of the person willing to believe in such things. Never forget that the goal for most is not to find out what is logical or illogical academically, but what makes them feel more comfortable. If we push harder than is warranted we risk alienating others for lack of respect, not sound reasoning.

Because we are dealing with what we perceive as an irrational way of thought, it is more important than usual to include a modest respect for the other position even if we believe, and can prove, the other position is incorrect. Since I do sometimes hold the rather vain hope that my posts may help to influence even just one person's thinking, I endeavor to balance a correct presentation of my thoughts with a high level of consideration for any idea I happen to be rebuking. (I have not always succeeded, certainly.)

This is not an admission of correctness of the idea I am advocating against. Rather it is more showing a respect for the level of faith the other person has in his or her idea. Simply because I may be convinced the other person is asserting something which is incorrect does not at the same time mean I should present myself in a way that is less respectful than I normally otherwise am.

The underlying problem is that a person who is already irrational will not necessarily suddenly see the truth of a rational idea. When dealing with anything like the sort of blind faith many people have, or wish to have, in a concept such as God, it is a good idea to persuade with both reason and tact. It may seem counter-intuitive when it comes to presenting a logical or scientific view, but in fact it is quite possible to mesh the two. The quotes I keep in my sig were written by a person I admire for doing just that.

My second point has to do with the statement:

the theist must resort to dishonest, ludicrous, scientifically laughable, or logically fallacious methods in order to defend his belief.

I can't say I agree with the scope of this claim. Asserting that *anyone* who believes in God "must resort to dishonest, ludicrous, scientifically laughable, or logically fallacious methods" is not quite correct. It would be better to state that most conceptions about God can be proven incorrect, or that as yet there is no doctrine regarding a higher power that has any real credibility in the face of accepted science. Beliefs in God are many and varied, and I have yet to see every single possible type of belief proved to be irrational or harmful. Making such a broad claim is both risky and rather high-minded.

***

Mind you, it can be shown that religious beliefs cause real harm.

When I said I cannot judge a person on thoughts alone, I was perhaps a bit unclear. I make a very stark distinction between a thought and an action based on a thought. Like it or not, a belief of any kind is effectively harmless until it becomes the impetus for a destructive or harmful action. If I were to believe in leprauchans, for instance, it wouldn't necessarily warrant remedy until I decided to drive through the country searching for them.

It is acceptable to try to change a person's way of thinking, but I do try to remain as utilitarian in my approach as possible. Humanity has proved that it is all to easy to become impassioned over things which of themselves do not inflict physical harm.

Again I would suggest a subtle but important rephrasing so as to make clear that it is the actions which result from irrational thinking that are the focus of our discussion. After all Darth, you yourself said, "I actually swore an oath to uphold a code of ethics which is basically utilitarian in nature..."

***

Everything I am getting at by my posts in this thread is this: even if we accept that our discussions are merely words, and that the best form of debate sees the opposing parties attack the argument and not the person presenting the argument, this should never give us license to forget the person in opposition. Just as we seek to take little offense at words, so too should we seek to give little offense. I have never seen it proven that an argument's logical validity is changed by the polite or impolite manner of its presentation.

What I always try to remember is that the basic goal of anyone seeking to better understand anything about our condition as living beings is to come closer to being comfortable with the world. Scientists, athiests, christians - anyone of any mindset is really seeking something similar whether we admit it or not. We are all born into a cold world that presents far more ways of failing at life than it does succeeding at it, and all any of us really wants when all the facades fall away is to find the happiest way of living.

[Surlethe]

I'd like emphasize one of the more common forms of the second method Darth Wong listed: reductio ad absurdum. Essentially, you assume the opposite of what you want to prove, and then show that it leads to some absurdity; then, you can conclude that your initial assumption was incorrect.

[Cluny the Scourge]

The matter is in hand. I am going to disprove the existence of God by becoming God myself. I deserve it and any unexpected resistance I might find on my way (e.g. any gods maliciously lurking under the carpets in heaven, or doped out and carelessly ignoring that there is a universe) will be cast down. I apologise in advance if any of the chunks land on your house and you have to get a window-cleaner in. It's best to go about with an umbrella, though, because I'm on the case right now.

[Musashi]

I have to agree with Punkus. In some ways atheist people in these forums have be come too eager to state theyre arguments against religious believes.
you have to remember that religion is rather personal thing for well... anyone who believes. So making theyre believes that they take very very seriously, sound rediciolous is very easy way to make them angry. When people get angry or fustrated they tend to get that lalalalalala I'm not listening lalalalalla reaction.
Even so you have to also remember that believeing does not need any proof to back it up. That's why it's called belief.
The presentation of evidence is the key in religious debates. I'm not wery good at it my self. Someone might say I'm the worst at it but it's still good to ceep it in mind.

[Mathias]

you have to remember that religion is rather personal thing for well... anyone who believes. So making theyre believes that they take very very seriously, sound rediciolous is very easy way to make them angry. When people get angry or fustrated they tend to get that lalalalalala I'm not listening lalalalalla reaction.

They do that because they cant come up with a real argument and there is a reason why they cant make a real argument that adresses what the atheists say.

[swabian]

I don't have a problem with personal religion. Not even with religion per se. I respect religious feelings and the beleifes of others. But apparently, religion behaves like a dangerous disease, as we can see every day in the fuccin TV showing that the attainments of enlightenemnt are not irreversible. Thus one has to choose ones priorities.

[I Have a Clever Name]

You can't disprove a being that exists outside the realms of logic and is believed in by using logic.

No matter how hard you try, we/they will never accept it.

Can you prove anything can exist 'outside of logic'? No? Then it is, heh, logical to assume that nothing can.

The closest thing you've done so far is made us say "I don't know, I'm not God, How can I know why he does such a thing".

Which is.. a victory? If the theist provides no counter-argument, but still clings to God.. its denial.

[Sétanta]

Its faith. Different than denial.

Can you prove anything can exist 'outside of logic'? No? Then it is, heh, logical to assume that nothing can.

No. It is logical to assume that trying to disprove him is impossible, because he is removed from the realms of understanding.

[DaftVapor]

Its faith. Different than denial.


No. It is logical to assume that trying to disprove him is impossible, because he is removed from the realms of understanding.

Faith is believing without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary. It is inherently irrational.

It is logical to assume trying to prove him is impossible, because he is removed from the realms of understanding.

Thats why you believe based on faith, and that is why religon is illogical.

[Søren]

Faith is believing without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary. It is inherently irrational.

Faith is believing without being sure of it.

Since we are incapable (I would argue), of understanding anything to a surety, then any belief would require faith.

It is logical to assume trying to prove him is impossible, because he is removed from the realms of understanding.

Correct.

However, it is no less valid than an arguement which assumes that the conception which we are capable of is able of understanding such concepts wholly.

Thats why you believe based on faith, and that is why religon is illogical.

Rather that it cannot be expressed fully without the introduction of concepts that cannot themselves be expressed fully.

Therefore one could construct an arguement on the grounds that God is capable of anything, but one could then not explain how God can do everything fully, in detail.

However, this is common to all philosophical statements, be they religious or not so, and is unavoidable.

What you I think you mean is valid; what you are actually saying is flawed.

[Darth Wong]

Faith is believing without being sure of it.

Since we are incapable (I would argue), of understanding anything to a surety, then any belief would require faith.

That definition of certainty is useless precisely because it excludes everything. Do you think it is unreasonable to be certain that you will fall if you jump off a cliff?

Ultimately, sufficiently high probability is sufficient for certainty. This may not satisfy philosophical hardliners but that is of no matter because quite frankly, those people are utterly useless to society. Science and engineering developed because people had practical and useful definitions of knowledge and certainty, not useless ones like the one you're peddling.

[swabian]

However, this is common to all philosophical statements, be they religious or not so, and is unavoidable.

No absolutely not. The basic criterion for validity of a theory is its falsifiability and it's plausibility. Religion explains absolutely nothing. Monotheistic religions are not an inch more plausible than the believe in a pantheon of monkey dieties.

What you I think you mean is valid; what you are actually saying is flawed.

That would be a semantic problem and not naturally inherent to any kind of theory. It is for instance possible to lead sentences containing the predicate 'omnipotent' ad absurdum without getting to indecisive statements that would be based on antinomies in the Kantish sense. I.e. it is possible to lead any religious argument ad absurdum, meanwhile scientific methods are allready limited to objective statements.