Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It wasn't just Dawkins Audie.

I think in general it is better to talk to people who are actually present, and see what their views are, rather than pick out ones not present, probably extremists of some sort that none of us know or care about, and present them as typical or representative of 'atheists", or, "Christians".

There are rich picking for anyone who wants to trot out nominal or otherwise self professing Christians and their views, to be held up for LolL. Ya know?

Sure, that would be great.

Meh. The problem is that by denying anyone is representative of a belief or a perspective you deny that knowledge of any kind is really possible at all. All knowledge, by nature and necessity--indeed, science itself--is based on appropriate generalizations. The greatest truths are the ones that have the broadest generalizability. So in context of this discussion, the question is whether or not Dawkins is an outlier--an extremist and atypical--or if he is, in fact, representative of the general atheist out there. If Audie or Kenny or any other resident atheist (those actually present) don't feel that they identify with Dawkins, then instead of blasting you, Paul, for trotting out a reasonable representation, then they should offer a principle of differentiation. They should also offer explanations as to why the generalization is either incorrect generally or else why, as a generalization, it does not follow in any given particular case (namely, theirs).

And to be clear, that's true of any one and any position, not just atheists and Dawkins. It's true of Christianity generally, of YECs generally, of OECs, etc. To pick on my camp, if someone trots out Dr Dino as a typical YEC and compare me to him, I would cringe and plead guilty. We do tend to be like that, and that to our shame. And there are reasons for that that we ought to deal with. I happen to think those reasons are ultimately psychological rather than related to logical consistency, but that's an argument I would have to make. (On the other hand, I could argue that he is not a typical representative, but sadly, I think he might be). But I wouldn't hold it against you, Paul, for raising him in any particular debate regarding the veracity of YEC claims or of the general worldview. Far from being an honest attempt at discussion, it would just be an attempt on my part to be dismissive of a substantive point and a failure to work with important ideas relating to the internal consistency of my position. And so it is with Dawkins/atheism and with any other type of position out there.

But in full fairness to Audie, that isn't a problem she has specially. It's a problem with post-modern society more generally (and yes, I'm making a generalization here). It's a problem we see a lot in political and foreign policy debates relating to sexists or racists or Islamists or whatever. When a typical member of a group demonstrates some undesirable characteristic, the question is naturally raised as to whether or not that characteristic is appropriately applied to the whole group and that group's responsibility in challenging the idea or reprimanding that individual. The current social standard is to try to say that individual actions are in no way representative of the group and therefore the group bears no such responsibility. Again, such just is not, in the final analysis, a self-consistent and tenable position. But it's a common intellectual weakness in the first world today.

Jac3510 wrote:Meh. The problem is that by denying anyone is representative of a belief or a perspective you deny that knowledge of any kind is really possible at all. All knowledge, by nature and necessity--indeed, science itself--is based on appropriate generalizations. The greatest truths are the ones that have the broadest generalizability. So in context of this discussion, the question is whether or not Dawkins is an outlier--an extremist and atypical--or if he is, in fact, representative of the general atheist out there. If Audie or Kenny or any other resident atheist (those actually present) don't feel that they identify with Dawkins, then instead of blasting you, Paul, for trotting out a reasonable representation, then they should offer a principle of differentiation. They should also offer explanations as to why the generalization is either incorrect generally or else why, as a generalization, it does not follow in any given particular case (namely, theirs).

And to be clear, that's true of any one and any position, not just atheists and Dawkins. It's true of Christianity generally, of YECs generally, of OECs, etc. To pick on my camp, if someone trots out Dr Dino as a typical YEC and compare me to him, I would cringe and plead guilty. We do tend to be like that, and that to our shame. And there are reasons for that that we ought to deal with. I happen to think those reasons are ultimately psychological rather than related to logical consistency, but that's an argument I would have to make. (On the other hand, I could argue that he is not a typical representative, but sadly, I think he might be). But I wouldn't hold it against you, Paul, for raising him in any particular debate regarding the veracity of YEC claims or of the general worldview. Far from being an honest attempt at discussion, it would just be an attempt on my part to be dismissive of a substantive point and a failure to work with important ideas relating to the internal consistency of my position. And so it is with Dawkins/atheism and with any other type of position out there.

But in full fairness to Audie, that isn't a problem she has specially. It's a problem with post-modern society more generally (and yes, I'm making a generalization here). It's a problem we see a lot in political and foreign policy debates relating to sexists or racists or Islamists or whatever. When a typical member of a group demonstrates some undesirable characteristic, the question is naturally raised as to whether or not that characteristic is appropriately applied to the whole group and that group's responsibility in challenging the idea or reprimanding that individual. The current social standard is to try to say that individual actions are in no way representative of the group and therefore the group bears no such responsibility. Again, such just is not, in the final analysis, a self-consistent and tenable position. But it's a common intellectual weakness in the first world today.

Is there a main idea or two that could go into like about 6 lines?

Sure.

[1] Generalizing is okay. [2] If someone presents an individual as an appropriate representation/generalization, then rather than challenge generalization generally, we should either [2a] accept the token as appropriately general/typical ([2b] and then try to differentiate some particular against that general if necessary) or else [2c] we should challenge why that token is appropriately general. [3] That's what we do every day in the social sciences and even in the hard sciences more generally.

Three sentences in four lines (on my comptuer)--just one sentences particularly long. Hope that's bettter!



edit:

Put a little different still. Suppose someone presents a token as a representative for some general group. In my mind, the appropriate resonse is

• 1. The token is an appropriate representative of a group; so
  • a. Accept the token as appropriately representing another individual in the group; or
    b. Reject the token as appropriately representing the group based on some other stated principle of differentiation
  OR
  2. The token is not an appropriate representative of a group

My point is that rather than arguing against representation generally, we ought to talking about appropriate principles of differentiation in light of some particular token as to its (supposed) representation of some group.

edit2:

Unrelated, I don't like how the [/list] tag automatically puts a paragraph break after it. Makes thing sloppy.

Generalization works when applied to the group, not the individual.

As someone that has frequented more than a few atheist websites ( websites dedicated to promoting atheism and against religion), I am well aware that many hold their atheism as a "badge of honour" much like the likes of Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and such.

Of course, it was asked that we produce specific names and when we did, we were told that speaking of people not here is not relevant so...

Damned if you do...

Of course generalization works when applied to the individual. Don't be ridiculous. Why do you think your doctor prescribes you antiobiotics when you get an infection? In general, we know that antibiotics are effective against this particular strain of bacteria. So we apply that to your case and give you that particular antibiotic.

Generalization to particular. That is why we do generalizations in the first place. And that's why the argument that we should only talk about generalizations is so absurd. So, to your point, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, etc are typical of atheists. Typical means, by definition, that they are a representative type. They are a specific example of the generalization, that atheists wear their atheism as a badge of honor. If one particular atheist does not, then that particular atheist is atypical, not vice-versa.

Jac3510 wrote:Of course generalization works when applied to the individual. Don't be ridiculous. Why do you think your doctor prescribes you antiobiotics when you get an infection? In general, we know that antibiotics are effective against this particular strain of bacteria. So we apply that to your case and give you that particular antibiotic.

Generalization to particular. That is why we do generalizations in the first place. And that's why the argument that we should only talk about generalizations is so absurd. So, to your point, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, etc are typical of atheists. Typical means, by definition, that they are a representative type. They are a specific example of the generalization, that atheists wear their atheism as a badge of honor. If one particular atheist does not, then that particular atheist is atypical, not vice-versa.

And you would know that how?

Jac3510 wrote:Sure.

[1] Generalizing is okay. [2] If someone presents an individual as an appropriate representation/generalization, then rather than challenge generalization generally, we should either [2a] accept the token as appropriately general/typical ([2b] and then try to differentiate some particular against that general if necessary) or else [2c] we should challenge why that token is appropriately general. [3] That's what we do every day in the social sciences and even in the hard sciences more generally.

Three sentences in four lines (on my comptuer)--just one sentences particularly long. Hope that's bettter!



edit:

Put a little different still. Suppose someone presents a token as a representative for some general group. In my mind, the appropriate resonse is

• 1. The token is an appropriate representative of a group; so
  • a. Accept the token as appropriately representing another individual in the group; or
    b. Reject the token as appropriately representing the group based on some other stated principle of differentiation
  OR
  2. The token is not an appropriate representative of a group

My point is that rather than arguing against representation generally, we ought to talking about appropriate principles of differentiation in light of some particular token as to its (supposed) representation of some group.

edit2:

Unrelated, I don't like how the [/list] tag automatically puts a paragraph break after it. Makes thing sloppy.

Thanks. Sometimes you prose affects me like trying to push a barge thro a cornfield.

Audie wrote:And you would know that how?

It's an inference warranted from both extensive anecdotal experience (including both my personal interaction with literally hundreds of atheists as well as reading more pages than I would care to count from formally and informally published atheists) and cultural significance of the so-called new atheists.

How would you know it's not?

edit:

But I don appreciate the question. It tracks the right line of thought, rather than just dismissing the type as a whole.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:And you would know that how?

It's an inference warranted from both extensive anecdotal experience (including both my personal interaction with literally hundreds of atheists as well as reading more pages than I would care to count from formally and informally published atheists) and cultural significance of the so-called new atheists.

How would you know it's not?

edit:

But I don appreciate the question. It tracks the right line of thought, rather than just dismissing the type as a whole.

I gotta get back to work.

But quickly..

I suppose its a bit like if my experience with Christians were limited to first the missionaries I ran across in HK, and then the people who show up at more door with pamphlets, or stand in the square at the University and preach away to nobody.

My opinion is that the great majority of Christians and atheists just go quietly about their lives and do not draw attention to themselves.

Audie wrote:I suppose its a bit like if my experience with Christians were limited to first the missionaries I ran across in HK, and then the people who show up at more door with pamphlets, or stand in the square at the University and preach away to nobody.

Do you think your anecdonal experience with the missionaries in HK and street preachers constitutes a large enough sample size to make informed generalizations? And do you think you have enough cultural background to confirm or question the generalization drawn from that data?

My opinion is that the great majority of Christians and atheists just go quietly about their lives and do not draw attention to themselves.

I'm not sure how Christians or atheists "go[ing] quietely about their lives and . . . not draw[ing] attention to themselves" has anything to do with whether or not their Christianity or atheism is worn as a badge of honor. Perhaps Paul could clarify what he meant by the term, because my interpretation doesn't have anything to do with whether or not people live "quietly" or "draw attention to themselves."

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:I suppose its a bit like if my experience with Christians were limited to first the missionaries I ran across in HK, and then the people who show up at more door with pamphlets, or stand in the square at the University and preach away to nobody.

Do you think your anecdonal experience with the missionaries in HK and street preachers constitutes a large enough sample size to make informed generalizations? And do you think you have enough cultural background to confirm or question the generalization drawn from that data?

My opinion is that the great majority of Christians and atheists just go quietly about their lives and do not draw attention to themselves.

I'm not sure how Christians or atheists "go[ing] quietely about their lives and . . . not draw[ing] attention to themselves" has anything to do with whether or not their Christianity or atheism is worn as a badge of honor. Perhaps Paul could clarify what he meant by the term, because my interpretation doesn't have anything to do with whether or not people live "quietly" or "draw attention to themselves."

If I saw ten thousand missionaries Id only have a sample of missionaries.

I dunno whst "badge of honor" means beyond what is in dicgionary.

Yes, you would only have sample. I asked if you would have a "large enough sample size to make informed generalizations." I suspect that if you had actually met 10,000 missionaries, you would have a very large sample size and would be in a good position to make generalizations.

Have you met 10,000 missionaries?

And perhaps Paul should tell us what exactly he means by "badge of honor." It's clearly a metaphor, so what it is it a metaphor of? As I read you, you seem to suggest the phrase means something lived "loud and proud" and is apparently mutually exclusive of living quiet lives not drawing attention to themselves. That's not at all how I understand the term. But it's rather pointless for us to argue about what the term might mean. The question is what Paul meant and whether or not we agree or disagree with that assessment.

Jac3510 wrote:Yes, you would only have sample. I asked if you would have a "large enough sample size to make informed generalizations." I suspect that if you had actually met 10,000 missionaries, you would have a very large sample size and would be in a good position to make generalizations.

Have you met 10,000 missionaries?

And perhaps Paul should tell us what exactly he means by "badge of honor." It's clearly a metaphor, so what it is it a metaphor of? As I read you, you seem to suggest the phrase means something lived "loud and proud" and is apparently mutually exclusive of living quiet lives not drawing attention to themselves. That's not at all how I understand the term. But it's rather pointless for us to argue about what the term might mean. The question is what Paul meant and whether or not we agree or disagree with that assessment.

People who go overseas to preach are not necessarily a representative sample of
Christians. Nor are the ones who play atheist website necessarily representative.

Anyhow yes, explanation of badge of honor is called for.

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:And you would know that how?

It's an inference warranted from both extensive anecdotal experience (including both my personal interaction with literally hundreds of atheists as well as reading more pages than I would care to count from formally and informally published atheists) and cultural significance of the so-called new atheists.

How would you know it's not?

edit:

But I don appreciate the question. It tracks the right line of thought, rather than just dismissing the type as a whole.

I gotta get back to work.

But quickly..

I suppose its a bit like if my experience with Christians were limited to first the missionaries I ran across in HK, and then the people who show up at more door with pamphlets, or stand in the square at the University and preach away to nobody.

My opinion is that the great majority of Christians and atheists just go quietly about their lives and do not draw attention to themselves.

In my many years of being a 'born-again' believer -- usually a pastor or youth pastor of a church are encouraging us To share the Gospel of salvation with whom ever is willing to listen --it's called life-style evangelism. If believers can go about their lives and Not draw attention to themselves -- meaning that their lives are no different - in a Positive way -- than anyone elses' then I'd dare say that something is amiss with their lives. Unless that person is part of a larger Christian community where everyone believes the same way. But -- at least in These times -- young people go off to college -- people change jobs -- retire and such -- we Are going to be living around those who believe differently than we do. So Then we Can and Should get to know our neighbors and invite them to the Bible study we go to. And chances Are they will observe our drinking Pepsi instead of alcoholic beverages so that we are Not getting drunk and disorderly / Not doing drugs / Not telling the off-color jokes / that we Are treating our spouses and kids with love and respect.

And -- there are those who Used to do door-to-door evangelism -- inviting people to church activities -- and Bible college students who would preach in the square on college / university campuses with the intent of reaching the student body and teachers as they go about their daily routine. Unfortunately it's dangerous to do that these days. But there Is an organization -- Campus Bible Fellowship that Is active these days. They reach lots of students with the Gospel.

So -- If believers are Not concerned with the fact that people Are going to end up in Christless eternity Forever -- We need to get Our act together -- our lives Should be different in a positive way that will attract other's To God.