That is exactly my point: All empirically observed facts are perfectly consistent with the existence of Russel's teapot. That does not get you anywhere with actually establishing any rational belief in its existence. Same as for universe-creating unicorn-pixies and for the creator you proposed. Consistency with observed reality does not get you anywhere.
> Unlike many who make the God-of-the-gaps argument, I don't assert that you should believe my conjecture; I simply point out that the conjecture is not an irrational one and that it has at least some evidentiary support.
Now, it's not irrational as a conjecture. Any wild hypothesis you can make up is essentially rational as a conjecture. But that's mostly useless to even talk about, as you can, as explained above, trivially generate new hypotheses. What is irrational, though, is your supposition that the consistency of your conjecture with empirical observation would be even a minor reason to consider it anything more than a completely unsupported hypothesis.
> I agree, but only for some values of "just make up anything in addition to that." Much progress has resulted from our making conjectures, i.e., "making something up," and then successively refining those conjectures as they're tested against extant- or experimental evidence.
Yes, I am strictly talking about making claims about reality.
> In any case, we all make bets in life based on our mental models.
True, and the closer those models align with reality, the less risky those bets, would you agree?
> My personal mental model includes (A) the existence of some kind of Creator who kicked off some kind of Great Project
Does that "creator" have any properties besides having kicked off the universe?
> I don't insist at all that anyone else adopt that mental model; I simply note that I find it useful.
Does that mean that you care about having a model that is as useful as reasonably possible? If so, how do you try to ensure that you will discover flaws in your model?
> Does that "creator" have any properties besides having kicked off the universe?
Not especially. I do posit, though, that life seems to be "improving," albeit non-monotonically, and that our species at least temporarily learns — often at terrible cost — from our mistakes; this might hint at a Creator "who" (that?) is at least somewhat benevolent.
(For what it's worth, in church I don't say the creeds past the "[maker] of all that is, seen and unseen," because the remainder is either sheer speculation or actively contradicted by the available evidence.)
So, why call it a creator then? If it doesn't have any properties besides having kicked off the universe, then it might as well be a primordial rock, couldn't it? Or universe-creating unicorn-pixies, for that matter. So, why use a word that seems to imply some sort of agency, probably intelligence, conciousness? That seems to me to be a highly confusing use of language, implying all sorts of baggage that's not really representative of what you seem to believe!? Wouldn't "the cause of the universe" be a much less confusing term to label this thing, that would be far less prone to being misinterpreted by the average person?
> I do posit, though, that life seems to be "improving," albeit non-monotonically, and that our species at least temporarily learns — often at terrible cost — from our mistakes; this might hint at a Creator "who" (that?) is at least somewhat benevolent.
Well, nice conjecture ... any reason to think it's more than a conjecture?
> any reason to think it's more than a conjecture?
It provides me with a certain comfort — a sense of meaning, if you will — to imagine that I'm contributing my infinitesimal bit to a Great Project. This might be just a personal emotional- or psychological quirk; I'm not too proud to accept placebo benefits, if that's what this is. If others find the Great Project concept useful or helpful, great. If someone comes up with something more plausible, I'm all ears.
Does the fact that some idea provides comfort have any effect on whether that idea is actually true?
If I find the idea comfortable, say, that I will inherit a million bucks next year, does that have any influence on whether I will in fact inherit a million bucks?
> I'm not too proud to accept placebo benefits, if that's what this is.
But
(a) does the possible existence of a placebo effect for some belief actually make the belief true?
(b) what have you done, if anything, to ensure that there aren't negative side effects to your possible "placebo treatment" that might outweigh the benefits of the placebo? Analogously to how responsible medical practitioners should not prescribe a placebo if the placebo treatment conflicts with treatment of a more fundamental condition, even if the placebo would have some positive effects.
> Does the fact that some idea provides comfort have any effect on whether that idea is actually true?
Actually, yes, but not in the sense you might mean: I'm not the least bit comforted by explanations of life that sound nice but also assume facts not in evidence. For example: I take no comfort in the notion — because I've seen no evidence and have no reason to believe — that a divine "being" has a plan for my life; that when I die I'll go to Heaven if I'm good or to Hell if I'm not; etc.
> what have you done, if anything, to ensure that there aren't negative side effects to your possible "placebo treatment" that might outweigh the benefits of the placebo?
A valid question. The main thing I do is discuss these matters with others — such as you — and try to keep an open mind to new evidence and new insights, in part because I like to know how things really work. (A corollary to the First Commandment is: Face the facts: Live in the world that the (hypothetical) Creator wrought, as opposed to the world we imagine, or wish, existed.)
In that vein: I used to be a total agnostic, until our then-rector asked an insightful question about physics that got me thinking and studying for several years, which eventually led to my working around to my present set of conjectures. See generally "Why I Still Call Myself a Christian and an Episcopalian (2005) (self-cite) http://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse....
That is exactly my point: All empirically observed facts are perfectly consistent with the existence of Russel's teapot. That does not get you anywhere with actually establishing any rational belief in its existence. Same as for universe-creating unicorn-pixies and for the creator you proposed. Consistency with observed reality does not get you anywhere.
> Unlike many who make the God-of-the-gaps argument, I don't assert that you should believe my conjecture; I simply point out that the conjecture is not an irrational one and that it has at least some evidentiary support.
Now, it's not irrational as a conjecture. Any wild hypothesis you can make up is essentially rational as a conjecture. But that's mostly useless to even talk about, as you can, as explained above, trivially generate new hypotheses. What is irrational, though, is your supposition that the consistency of your conjecture with empirical observation would be even a minor reason to consider it anything more than a completely unsupported hypothesis.
> I agree, but only for some values of "just make up anything in addition to that." Much progress has resulted from our making conjectures, i.e., "making something up," and then successively refining those conjectures as they're tested against extant- or experimental evidence.
Yes, I am strictly talking about making claims about reality.
> In any case, we all make bets in life based on our mental models.
True, and the closer those models align with reality, the less risky those bets, would you agree?
> My personal mental model includes (A) the existence of some kind of Creator who kicked off some kind of Great Project
Does that "creator" have any properties besides having kicked off the universe?
> I don't insist at all that anyone else adopt that mental model; I simply note that I find it useful.
Does that mean that you care about having a model that is as useful as reasonably possible? If so, how do you try to ensure that you will discover flaws in your model?