They might as well exist, but based on my prior estimates of probabilities of different events, and Bayesian reasoning, I conclude that it's much more likely that you're insane than that you've actually seen a unicorn (I don't discard the existence of unicorns entirely, I just consider it very improbable).
You don't have to explain your reasoning. My point is predicated on my understanding your reasoning perfectly.
And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far.
It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. In truth, neither of us can prove what we know or don't know in many regards.
It matters because it also smacks of the same moral/intellectual high-ground staking that serves to dismiss entire groups of people. Sure, we can claim tolerance, but is real tolerance (i.e. seeing others as equals, respecting their beliefs vs. just allowing that they have them, etc.) truly compatible with one group believing that another is actually insane?
The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little.
It's the other way around; I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof). Discussion of things that probably don't exist (e.g. time travel) or that we don't know whether they exist or not (wormholes) can be perfectly rational and reasonable, as long as all parties fully acknowledge that their knowledge is limited, and abstain from referring to strong, but ultimately unprovable, belief. Discussions about god/religion usually are not like that; in particular, most religions are based on an implicit denial of all other religions/prophets/versions of the truth.
> The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo.
My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone).
> And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
No, I just ridicule other's belief when it's not evidence based (which is, essentially, the basis of science).
>I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof)
The point you're missing is that your basis for proof is flawed. Given that you substantively know so little (if anything) more in the relative sense, you are in no more of a position to require proof than are those with whom you disagree.
The other, and perhaps bigger, point is why the need for ridicule in the first place? Even if you possessed the complete set of Universal, Provable Knowledge, is ridicule the right approach to those who do not?
Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc. In any case, I suspect that if you did possess such knowledge, then you would be less likely to suffer from the glaring insecurities that obviously motivate your current scorn.
>My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone).
Actually, a frequently and perhaps most often used definition of "materially" is "substantially" or "considerably". Has nothing to do with the physical world.
I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule.
Still, possessing an attitude of intolerance towards others, then feigning superiority when the intolerance of others plays out in the physical world seems myopic.
In either case, I suppose that it is a starting place that you agree that your approach to these issues is not unlike the intolerant approach of those whom attacked Hebdo. Seems that, from here, you would want to explore whether that is wise.
> The other, and perhaps bigger, point is why the need for ridicule in the first place?
> Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc.
What approach do you suggest? Imagine, for a case, that you meet someone that claims to believe in unicorns. Most people would say that person is insane, and there is no point in "teaching" him/her otherwise; if one is so oblivious to the reality as to believe in the existence of unicorns, you probably won't be able to convince him/her otherwise using "conventional" means (words). I simply apply the same reasoning to people who believe in a god. (For the matter of case, I would also apply the same reasoning to someone who blindly believed in e.g. evolution or that the Earth is round - although my default assumption, when I come across such people, is that they have reasons for their beliefs, and could at least outline the method of the proof, and discuss its limits).
> I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule.
Thanks for clarifying that. Still, I think I have a point when I say that my approach is "considerably" different than that of Charlie Hebdo attackers.
>Imagine, for a case, that you meet someone that claims to believe in unicorns.
Well, we're going a little too deep in mixing trivial examples with significant real-world issues, which I think, beyond a certain point, just gets us off track.
Here's the main point: there are large groups of people who believe in something for which they believe there is compelling evidence. You disagree with them, based on your evidence. Now, your evidence is evolving and is incomplete. In fact, scientific evidence has been overturned by more evidence. There have even been cases wherein the Bible was presumed wrong, but later corroborated by archaeological evidence. The state of science hadn't yet caught up to the reality that the Bible had already documented.
And, suffice it to say, there are many scientists who, at a certain point, draw the conclusion that there is some sort of intelligent design behind our universe. Their belief is derived in full weight of and respect for the scientific evidence. There are also fundamental, observable laws of physics that must be broken in order to accommodate a spontaneous eruption of the universe. That is, accepted science contradicts itself. In some cases, the science is predicated upon assumptions that cannot yet be proven. That is, there is a measure of something akin to faith involved.
All of this to say that taking a position of assuredness in one's belief in something in the face of incomplete knowledge is the same, irrespective of some subjective measure of "degree of evidence" that one side or the other would like to impose. Your certainty that they are wrong is exactly as valid as their certainty that they are right.
Likewise, subjecting to ridicule those whose beliefs don't align with your own is short-sighted and destructive on either side.
In my opinion, the scientist's mind remains open until conclusive proof is in. Now, you may choose not to believe in Islam or Christianity, etc. because you have no proof of their truth. But, the most you can say about them is there's not enough evidence to convince you. You simply cannot conclude that they are wrong if you are applying those same "laws" of evidence to which you subscribe.
> Here's the main point: there are large groups of people who believe in something for which they believe there is compelling evidence. You disagree with them, based on your evidence. [...] Their belief is derived in full weight of and respect for the scientific evidence.
No. There is no compelling evidence; there is even less scientific evidence (if you believe the contrary, please present it). And I don't need evidence to disclaim their belief, just as I don't need evidence to disclaim the belief of unicorns; the person making a proposition should present a proof. Edit: Mind you, I fully believe that unicorns could exist. But if you claim they do exist, I will call you on your bullshit, and demand you present a proof. Basically: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
> That is, there is a measure of something akin to faith involved.
No, you don't understand science. There is not faith. There are only measurements. Even gravity is not "proven"; it's only "demonstrated" to such a degree that we reasonably believe it's foolish to believe anything else.
> Your certainty that they are wrong is exactly as valid as their certainty that they are right.
This is the other part of my argument; even if we assume that the universe and everything in it was created by God, the question is, which God? There is no "they" who could be "right"; there are different fractions of people, having different, incompatible but equally irrational beliefs (Egyptian gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, Jewish/Christian/Muslim god, Hindu god(s), ...). Each of these theories could be true, and if one is true all others are necessarily false (including atheism). Occam's Razor, a mental trick commonly applied in science, suggests that all religions are false.
Compelling, of course, is a subjective word. So, you mean to say that there is no evidence that compels you. But, certainly, you are aware of eyewitness accounts of, say, Jesus' life and work, as well as archaeological evidence. You can choose not to be compelled by the evidence, but you cannot say it doesn't exist. And, you obviously cannot claim that it fails to compel others.
>I fully believe that unicorns could exist. But if you claim they do exist, I will call you on your bullshit, and demand you present a proof.
It's pretty stunning that, to your mind, nothing exists unless it can be proven. Again, I take you back to that trite and cliche notion that you cannot prove your own existence.
Alone, that statement would be pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but I say this here only because the utter paucity in what any of us knows should undermine your confidence in imposing your own beliefs at least somewhat?
But, keeping it to the physical world, you are arguing, essentially, that you can explain (or prove) each and every thing that you observe.
>No, you don't understand science. There is not faith. There are only measurements.
Measurements are mere interpretations of what is "demonstrated". There is faith in science the moment we draw a conclusion predicated upon something that we cannot fully explain, but can only observe. In fact, religion itself has served this very role for millennia.
Some of our most accepted and consequential theories (e.g. Big Bang itself) are predicated on things that we cannot yet explain. In fact, we make "allowances" for some of these things that are themselves yet proven.
Yeah, it's the best scientific explanation we have so far. But, I think it's a bit presumptuous to go bashing people over the head with it.
>This is the other part of my argument; even if we assume that the universe and everything in it was created by God, the question is, which God?
Well, I wonder, if you allow that any God created the universe, whether the discussion about which God dissolve into pure meaninglessness? That is, if you acknowledge the existence of a God that created the Universe (and you), then are you really in a position to quibble about God's nature if you're not willing to consider the "evidence" from those who claim to know?
But, any one of these, all of these, or none of these could be correct. There could be some truth that reconciles all of these, as much as some unknown about dark matter or gravity or time could unify physics.
>Occam's Razor, a mental trick commonly applied in science, suggests that all religions are false.
Yeah, I think I may have come across one of the most famous "mental tricks" in the world from time-to-time! Seriously, it actually has an interesting history with regard to religion and its namesake, who was actually a Christian. You should look it up.
Yes, it's indeed interestingly... wrong. That's exactly the bullshit I was referring to.
First, the statistics are completely idiotic - the typical stunts marginally smart people pull when they try to manipulate the public using "science". SETI has scanned close to 0% of the sky, and has been operational for approximately 0% of the lifetime of the universe. Furthermore, most light from far-away parts of the universe hasn't even arrived yet. Also, extrapolating "probabilities" from N=1 is obviously impossible. Sure, there might be 10^-100 probability of physical constants permitting stars to form, but there might be 10^200 universes being created every second, so... And, there were many planets found since that could potentially harbour life.
Second, even if we somehow assume that the authors are right (i.e. that their, completely unsubstantiated, estimates of the relevant probabilities are, miraculously, quite close), we cannot assume that "intelligent design", yet alone any specific religion, are right; simply, disproving A does not prove B if there are other options available. For example, we might be living inside a Matrix or another artificial experiment; that's quite far removed from the description of "intelligent design" as usually propagated by religious people.
>the typical stunts marginally smart people pull when they try to manipulate the public using "science".
Absolutists in the other direction frequently display a certain inability to wedge in ideas that run counter to scientific dogma. This, even to the outright dismissal of evidence to the contrary. At a certain point, this adherence to dogma becomes a religion unto itself, complete with all of its faith-based articles.
It seems that you missed the entire tone of the article, and got stuck on the numbers (and your analysis there is partially incorrect, by the way).
Did you notice the evolution in science? What was initially supposed has since evolved dramatically. Sagan had a view that was widely accepted in scientific circles. Then, the narrowness of that view became increasingly apparent until the original assumption was rendered scientifically meaninglessness. Are you saying that didn't happen? If it has, then does it have any bearing on your strict adherence to scientific evidence or absolute certainty? Or, are you saying that we now have it 100% correct?
Did you also happen to notice quotes from Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, John Lennox or any of the rest of it?
But, here's one of your comment's biggest flaws:
>Also, extrapolating "probabilities" from N=1 is obviously impossible
No one is talking about the search for life in other universes or even the search for other universes. You're confusing the relevant terms in your equation. Let's just stick to the one universe we know. It's the premise of the article, the search, the assumptions made by Sagan, etc.
I don't really want to refute each point. The bottom line, again, is that there's been an evolution in science that continues to this day.
>disproving A does not prove B if there are other options available. For example, we might be living inside a Matrix or another artificial experiment
Sure, but it's pretty amazing that you are so selectively willing to allow for such "extreme" possibilities, but not ones for which thousands of years of history and some evidence exists. Wasn't that you who just invoked Occam's Razor?
First, you're dubbing religious people insane. Now, you're saying we might be living in an artificial experiment. You're willing to allow that there's some sort of "intelligent design", as long as it's not the one "propagated by religious people".
All totaled, it just seems that you have a bone to pick with religion, as much as a simple adherence to "science".
But, I'll leave you with this quote from Sagan, which sums up what I've been trying to express with far more eloquence:
"To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."
>> And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far.
Heard of the anthropic principle?
>> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little.
That's kinda the point though, sure we don't know everything, sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do, you've taken the same knowledge base (actually usually less) and built a tissue of wishful thinking and fantasy upon it.
I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs. Respecting their right to have them is fine, but taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far.
>> The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based.
People with paranoid delusions also believe it.
Can you conclusively prove that principle with scientific evidence? :)
>sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do
There's evidence that some consider compelling and others do not. But, my bigger point is regarding the need to ridicule. Why is that? If you don't believe it, then just don't believe it.
>I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs.
Tolerance is not just "allowing" people to believe something, then thinking them insane or idiots and treating them as such.
>taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far.
But, you can't prove that they are not equally valid or even that religious beliefs are inconsistent with scientific evidence in many cases.
> Tolerance is not just "allowing" people to believe something, then thinking them insane or idiots and treating them as such.
"Treating them as such", maybe not; it certainly can include thinking that certain beliefs are insane. I'd say, in its best forms, it doesn't include dismissing out-of-hand everything from followers of a particular belief system because you believe some elements of that belief system are insane, though.
Well, I think, practically speaking, it would be exceedingly difficult to think someone an idiot or outright insane, yet not have that impact the way we treat them.
And, it would be hard to separate a belief to which someone adheres his/her life from that person; and instead just judge that belief insane without judging the person the same.
More specifically, I think the degree to which we can separate the two are based on people's apparent adherence to their beliefs. So, the more they veil their beliefs, the more acceptable they are in the eyes of others who don't share them and would otherwise think them insane.
I think that there is a semantic issue here. What you seem to be calling "true tolerance" seems to be what is frequently called "acceptance" by people that argue that tolerance is not all that is deserved by certain groups.
And I agree that in many cases it is appropriate to go beyond tolerance to acceptance, but tolerance is more broadly warranted, even in some cases where acceptance is not.
Perhaps it is semantic. But, when you mention "acceptance" it actually seems odder still. It underscores that acceptance is something that one group (presumably the majority) confers upon another (presumably some minority).
And, I think, "why does this have to be conferred vs. being the default state"? It brings to mind the difference between granting certain rights vs. recognizing that they are truly inalienable and exist naturally.
With that in mind, I can't think of a case wherein acceptance is not "warranted", unless it involves harm to others or infringement on their rights. So, I'm not sure that acceptance is the right term, though, to your point, there may yet be one better than "true tolerance".
Of course, everyone is free to not accept or be tolerant or whatever we want to call it. I'm just arguing that is healthier to truly coexist and that there are implications to our choices that, at least in part, serve to define the world in which we live.
> It underscores that acceptance is something that one group (presumably the majority) confers upon another (presumably some minority).
Its more something one individual bestows on other individuals. That a group can be said to be doing it or not is simply an aggregate description of the actions of individuals in the group.
> And, I think, "why does this have to be conferred vs. being the default state"?
Whether acceptance, tolerance, or intolerance or the default state, there is still utility in all three distinct terms to describe states that exist in the world.
