On questions of simple fact (for example, whether Earthly life arose by natural selection) there’s a legitimate expectation that the argument should be a one-sided battle; the facts themselves are either one way or another, and the so-called “balance of evidence” should reflect this. Indeed, under the Bayesian definition of evidence, “strong evidence” is just that sort of evidence which we only expect to find on one side of an argument.
I don’t see the theism/atheism debate as a policy debate. There is a factual question underlying it, and that factual question is “does God exist?” I find it very hard to imagine a universe where the answer to that question is neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’.
I find it very hard to imagine a universe where the answer to that question is neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’.
I have been in many conversations where the question being referred to by the phrase “does God exist?” seems sufficiently vague/incoherent that it cannot be said to have a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, either because it’s unclear what “God” refers to or because it’s unclear what rules of reasoning/discourse apply to discussing propositions with the word “God” in them.
Whether such conversations have anything meaningful to do with the theism/atheism debate, I don’t know. I’d like to think not, just like the existence of vague and incoherent discussions about organic chemistry doesn’t really say much about organic chemistry.
I’m not so sure, though, as it seems that if we start with our terms and rules of discourse clearly defined and shared, there’s often no ‘debate’ left to have.
I have been in many conversations where the question being referred to by the phrase “does God exist?” seems sufficiently vague/incoherent that it cannot be said to have a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, either because it’s unclear what “God” refers to or because it’s unclear what rules of reasoning/discourse apply to discussing propositions with the word “God” in them.
That’s in important point. There are certain definitions of ‘god’, and certain rules of reasoning, which would cause my answer to the question of whether God exists to change. (For that matter, there are definitions of ‘exists’ which might cause my answer to change). For example, if the question is whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, I’d say ‘no’ with high probability; unless the word ‘exists’ is defined to include ‘exists as a fictional construct, much like Little Red Riding Hood’ in which case the answer would be ‘yes’ with high probability (and provable by finding a story about it).
...it seems that if we start with our terms and rules of discourse clearly defined and shared, there’s often no ‘debate’ left to have.
Clearly defining and sharing the terms and rules of discourse should be a prerequisite for a proper debate. Otherwise it just ends up in a shouting match over semantics, which isn’t helpful at all.
That’s surprising. I’d expect at least some of them to at least address the arguments of the other side.
I’m pretty sure proof that the other side’s claims are mistaken is included in “support for their side”.
...right. I take your point.
I was rereading some of the core sequences and I came across this:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/
Important quote from that article:
I don’t see the theism/atheism debate as a policy debate. There is a factual question underlying it, and that factual question is “does God exist?” I find it very hard to imagine a universe where the answer to that question is neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’.
I have been in many conversations where the question being referred to by the phrase “does God exist?” seems sufficiently vague/incoherent that it cannot be said to have a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, either because it’s unclear what “God” refers to or because it’s unclear what rules of reasoning/discourse apply to discussing propositions with the word “God” in them.
Whether such conversations have anything meaningful to do with the theism/atheism debate, I don’t know. I’d like to think not, just like the existence of vague and incoherent discussions about organic chemistry doesn’t really say much about organic chemistry.
I’m not so sure, though, as it seems that if we start with our terms and rules of discourse clearly defined and shared, there’s often no ‘debate’ left to have.
That’s in important point. There are certain definitions of ‘god’, and certain rules of reasoning, which would cause my answer to the question of whether God exists to change. (For that matter, there are definitions of ‘exists’ which might cause my answer to change). For example, if the question is whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, I’d say ‘no’ with high probability; unless the word ‘exists’ is defined to include ‘exists as a fictional construct, much like Little Red Riding Hood’ in which case the answer would be ‘yes’ with high probability (and provable by finding a story about it).
Clearly defining and sharing the terms and rules of discourse should be a prerequisite for a proper debate. Otherwise it just ends up in a shouting match over semantics, which isn’t helpful at all.
there’s nothing so strange that no-one has seriously proposed it
...I am surprised.
I still can’t imagine it myself, but I guess that means that someone can.