Why? This seems to be the foundation for all your justifications here, and it’s an incredibly strong claim. What evidence supports it? Is there any (weaker, presumably) evidence that contradicts it? I’d suggest you take a look at the article on Privileging the Hypothesis, which is a pretty easy failure mode to fall into when the hypothesis in question was developed by someone else.
A weighty question… At the moment, I’m not entirely able to give you the full response, I’m afraid, but I’ll give you the best ‘short answer’ that I’m able to compile.
1: The universe seems slanted towards Entropy. This suggests a ‘start’. Which suggests something to start the universe. This of course has a great many logical fallacies inherent in it, but it’s one element.
2: Given a ‘something to start the universe’, we’re left with hypothetical scientific/mathematical constructs or a deity-figure of some sort.
3: Assuming a deity figure (yes, privileging the Hypothesis—but given a small number of possibilities, we can hypothesize each in turn and then exhaustively test that element) we need to assume that either the deity figure doesn’t care if we know about it, in which case it’s pointless to search, or that it does care if we know about it, in which case there will be evidence. If it is pointless to search, then I see little difference between that and a hypothetical scientific/mathematical construct. Thus, we’re still left with ‘natural unknown force’ or ‘knowable deity figure’.
4: Assuming a deity figure with the OOMPH to make a universe, it’ll probably be able to make certain it remains known. So it’s probably one of the existing long-lasting and persistent belief systems.
5: ( magic happens ) Given a historical study of various long-lasting and persistent belief systems, I settled on Christianity as the most probable belief system, based on my knowledge of human behavior, the historical facts of the actions surrounding the era and life of Jesus such as the deaths of the Disciples, a study of the bible, and a basic irrational hunch. I found that lots of what I was brought up being taught about the bible and Christianity was wrong, but the Bible itself seemed much more stable.
6: Given certain historical elements, I was led to have to believe in certain Christian miracles I’m unable to explain. That, combined with the assumption that a deity-figure would want itself to be known, results in an active belief.
3: Assuming there is no deity-figure, or the deity-figure does not care to be known. In this case, the effort expended applying rational thought to religious institutions will not provide direct fruit for a proper religion.
4: If there is no deity figure, or the deity-figure dose not care to be known, the most likely outcome of assumption #1 will likely have a serious flaw in it.
5: ( magic happens ) I searched out (and continue to search out) all the strongest “Christianity cannot be true” arguments I could (and can) find, and compare the anti-Christianity to the pro-Christianity arguments, and could not find a serious flaw. Several small flaws which are easily attributable to human error or lack of knowledge about a subject, but nothing showing a serious flaw in the underpinnings of the religion.
6: Additional side effect: the act of researching religions includes a researching and examination of comparable morality systems and social behavior, and how it affects the world around it. This provides sufficient benefit that even if there is no deity figure, or a deity figure does not care to be known, the act of searching is not wasted. Quite the contrary, I consider the ongoing study into religion, and into Christianity itself, to be time well spent—even if at some later date I discover that the religion does have the serious flaw that I have not yet found.
1: The universe seems slanted towards Entropy. This suggests a ‘start’. Which suggests something to start the universe. This of course has a great many logical fallacies inherent in it, but it’s one element.
If this point is logically fallacious, why is it the foundation of your belief? Eliezer has addressed the topic, but that post focuses more on whether one should jump to the idea of God from the idea of a First Cause, which you do seem to have thought about. But why assume a First Cause at all?
On a slightly different tack, if Thor came down (Or is it up? My Norse mythology is a little rusty) from Valhalla, tossed some thunderbolts around, and otherwise provided various sorts of strong evidence to support his claim that he was the God of Thunder with all that that entails, would you then worship him? Or, to put it another way, is there some evidence that would make you change your mind?
(Apologies if I’m being too aggressive with my questions. You seem like good people, and I wouldn’t want to drive you away.)
Oh, no, not at all! I’m quite happy to have people interested in what I have to say, but I’m trying to keep my conversation suitable for the ‘Welcome to Less Wrong’ thread, and not have it get too big. ^_^
As far as ‘If it’s logically fallacious, why is it the foundation of your belief?’
Well, it’s not the foundation of my belief, it’s just a very strong element thereof. It would probably require several months of dedicated effort and perhaps 30,000 words to really hit the whole of my belief with any sort of holistic effort. However, why assume a First Cause? Well, because of entropy, we have to assume some sort of start for this iteration. Anything past that starts getting into extreme hypotheticals that only really ‘make more sense than God’ if it suits your pre-existing conditions. And no, I’m not saying God makes more sense outside of a bias—more that given a clean slate, “There might be laws of physics we can’t detect because they don’t function in a universe where they’ve already countered entropy to a new start state” is about equal to “Maybe there’s a Deity figure that decided it wanted to start the universe” are about equal in my mind. And to be fair, ‘deity figure’ could be equivalent to ‘Higher-level universe’s programmer making a computer game.’ Or this could all be a simulation, and none of it’s actually real, or, or, or…
But the reason that I decide to accept this as a basic assumption is that, eventually, you have to assume that there is truth, and work off of the existing scientific knowledge instead of waiting for brand new world-shattering discoveries in the field of metaphysics. So I keep an interested eye on stuff like brane vibration or cosmic froth, but still assume that entropy happens, and the universe had an actual start.
if Thor came down throwing lightning bolts and etc, and claiming our worship, I’d be… well, admittedly, a little confused, and unsure. That’s not exactly his MO from classic Norse mythology (which I love) and Norse mythology really didn’t have the oomph of world creation that goes together with scientific evidence. I’d have to wonder if he wasn’t a Nephilim or alien playing tricks. (Hi, Stargate SG-1!)
However, I take your meaning. If some deity figure came down and said, “hey, here’s proof,” yeah, I’d have a LOT of re-evaluating to do. It’d depend a lot on circumstances, and what sort of evidence of the past, rather than just pure displays of power, the deity figure could present. What answers does it have to the tough questions? Does it match certain anti-christ elements from Revelations?
Alternatively, what sort of evidence would make me change my mind and become atheist?
I would love to be able to easily say, “Yeah, if this happened, I’d totally change my mind in an instant!” but I am aware that I’m only human, and certain beliefs have momentum in my mind. Negative circumstance certainly won’t do it—I’ve long ago resolved the “Why does a good God allow bad things to happen?” element. Idiotic Christian fanboys won’t do it—I’ve been developing a very careful attitude towards religion and politics in divorcing ideas from the proponents of ideas. And if I had an idea what that proof would be—I’d already be researching it. So I just keep kicking around looking for new stuff to research.
Sounds like you’ve given this some serious thought and avoided all kinds of failure modes. While I disagree with you and think that there’s probably an interesting discussion here, I agree that this probably isn’t the place to get into it. Welcome to Less Wrong, and I hope you stick around.
I’ve certainly tried, thank you very much. I think that might be the most satisfying reaction I could have hoped to receive. ^_^ I hope to stick around for a good long time, too… this site’s rivaling “TV Tropes” for the ability to completely suck me in for hours at a time without me noticing it.
Given a historical study of various long-lasting and persistent belief systems, I settled on Christianity as the most probable belief system, based on my knowledge of human behavior, the historical facts of the actions surrounding the era and life of Jesus such as the deaths of the Disciples, a study of the bible, and a basic irrational hunch.
This sounds interesting. So were you raised an atheist or in some non-Christian religious tradition? Is the culture of your home country predominantly non-Christian? Conversion to a new belief system based on evidence is an interesting phenomenon because it is so relatively rare. The vast majority of religious people simply adopt the religion they were raised in or the dominant religion of the surrounding culture which is one piece of evidence that religious belief is not generally arrived at through rational thinking. Counter examples to this trend offer a case study in the kinds of evidence that can actually change people’s minds.
Apologies, I’m not as interesting as that. I changed a lot of beliefs about the belief system, but I was nonetheless still raised Christian. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise—pre-existing developmental bias is part of the ‘basic irrational hunch’ part of the sentence.
I agree that religious belief is not generally arrived at through rational thinking, however—whether that religious belief is ‘there is a God, and I know who it is!’ or ‘there is no God’. This is evidenced, for instance, the time I was standing there at church, just before services, and enjoying the fine day, and someone steps up next to me. “Isn’t it a beautiful morning?” he asks. “Yes it is!” I reply. “Makes you wonder how someone can see this and still be an atheist,” he says.
( head turns slooooowly ) “I think it’s possible to appreciate a beautiful morning and still be atheist...” “Yes, but then who would have made something so beautiful?” ( mouth opens to talk ) ( mouth works silently ) “I believe the assumption would be, no one.” “And what kind of sense would that make?” “I’d love to have that discussion, but service is about to start, and it’s too beautiful a morning for what I suspect would be an argument.”
4: Assuming a deity figure with the OOMPH to make a universe, it’ll probably be able to make certain it remains known. So it’s probably one of the existing long-lasting and persistent belief systems.
I like this argument. If there was such a deity, it could make certain it is known (and rediscovered when forgotten). The deity could embed this information into the universe in any numbers of ways. These ways could be accessed by humans, but misinterpreted. Evidence for this is the world religions, which have many major beliefs in common, but differ in the details. Christianity, being somewhat mature as a religion and having developed concurrently with rational and scientific thought, could have a reliable interpretation in certain aspects.
however, I’m following from an assumption of a deity that wants to be known and moving forward. It certainly doesn’t suffice for showing that a deity figure does exist, because if we follow the assumption of a deity that doesn’t want to be known, or a lack of a deity, then any religion which has withstood the test of time is likely the one with the fewest obvious flaws. It’s rather like evolution of an idea rather than a creature.
However, the existence of such a religion does provide for the possibility of a deity figure.
I used the word ‘embed’ because this implies the deity could (possibly) be working within the rules of physics. The relationship between the deity, physical time and whether it is immediately involved in human events would be an interesting digression. The timelessness of physics is a relevant set of posts for that.
I agree with your comments. Regarding the strength of implications in either direction, (the possibility of a deity given a vigorous religion or the possibility of a true religion given a deity), there are two main questions:
if a deity exists, should we expect that it cares if it is known?
does the world actually look like a world in which a deity would be revealing itself? (though as you cautioned, such a world may or may not actually have a deity within it)
If this thread is likely to attenuate here, these questions are left for academic interest …
Why? This seems to be the foundation for all your justifications here, and it’s an incredibly strong claim. What evidence supports it? Is there any (weaker, presumably) evidence that contradicts it? I’d suggest you take a look at the article on Privileging the Hypothesis, which is a pretty easy failure mode to fall into when the hypothesis in question was developed by someone else.
A weighty question… At the moment, I’m not entirely able to give you the full response, I’m afraid, but I’ll give you the best ‘short answer’ that I’m able to compile.
1: The universe seems slanted towards Entropy. This suggests a ‘start’. Which suggests something to start the universe. This of course has a great many logical fallacies inherent in it, but it’s one element. 2: Given a ‘something to start the universe’, we’re left with hypothetical scientific/mathematical constructs or a deity-figure of some sort. 3: Assuming a deity figure (yes, privileging the Hypothesis—but given a small number of possibilities, we can hypothesize each in turn and then exhaustively test that element) we need to assume that either the deity figure doesn’t care if we know about it, in which case it’s pointless to search, or that it does care if we know about it, in which case there will be evidence. If it is pointless to search, then I see little difference between that and a hypothetical scientific/mathematical construct. Thus, we’re still left with ‘natural unknown force’ or ‘knowable deity figure’. 4: Assuming a deity figure with the OOMPH to make a universe, it’ll probably be able to make certain it remains known. So it’s probably one of the existing long-lasting and persistent belief systems. 5: ( magic happens ) Given a historical study of various long-lasting and persistent belief systems, I settled on Christianity as the most probable belief system, based on my knowledge of human behavior, the historical facts of the actions surrounding the era and life of Jesus such as the deaths of the Disciples, a study of the bible, and a basic irrational hunch. I found that lots of what I was brought up being taught about the bible and Christianity was wrong, but the Bible itself seemed much more stable. 6: Given certain historical elements, I was led to have to believe in certain Christian miracles I’m unable to explain. That, combined with the assumption that a deity-figure would want itself to be known, results in an active belief.
3: Assuming there is no deity-figure, or the deity-figure does not care to be known. In this case, the effort expended applying rational thought to religious institutions will not provide direct fruit for a proper religion. 4: If there is no deity figure, or the deity-figure dose not care to be known, the most likely outcome of assumption #1 will likely have a serious flaw in it. 5: ( magic happens ) I searched out (and continue to search out) all the strongest “Christianity cannot be true” arguments I could (and can) find, and compare the anti-Christianity to the pro-Christianity arguments, and could not find a serious flaw. Several small flaws which are easily attributable to human error or lack of knowledge about a subject, but nothing showing a serious flaw in the underpinnings of the religion. 6: Additional side effect: the act of researching religions includes a researching and examination of comparable morality systems and social behavior, and how it affects the world around it. This provides sufficient benefit that even if there is no deity figure, or a deity figure does not care to be known, the act of searching is not wasted. Quite the contrary, I consider the ongoing study into religion, and into Christianity itself, to be time well spent—even if at some later date I discover that the religion does have the serious flaw that I have not yet found.
If this point is logically fallacious, why is it the foundation of your belief? Eliezer has addressed the topic, but that post focuses more on whether one should jump to the idea of God from the idea of a First Cause, which you do seem to have thought about. But why assume a First Cause at all?
On a slightly different tack, if Thor came down (Or is it up? My Norse mythology is a little rusty) from Valhalla, tossed some thunderbolts around, and otherwise provided various sorts of strong evidence to support his claim that he was the God of Thunder with all that that entails, would you then worship him? Or, to put it another way, is there some evidence that would make you change your mind?
(Apologies if I’m being too aggressive with my questions. You seem like good people, and I wouldn’t want to drive you away.)
Oh, no, not at all! I’m quite happy to have people interested in what I have to say, but I’m trying to keep my conversation suitable for the ‘Welcome to Less Wrong’ thread, and not have it get too big. ^_^
As far as ‘If it’s logically fallacious, why is it the foundation of your belief?’
Well, it’s not the foundation of my belief, it’s just a very strong element thereof. It would probably require several months of dedicated effort and perhaps 30,000 words to really hit the whole of my belief with any sort of holistic effort. However, why assume a First Cause? Well, because of entropy, we have to assume some sort of start for this iteration. Anything past that starts getting into extreme hypotheticals that only really ‘make more sense than God’ if it suits your pre-existing conditions. And no, I’m not saying God makes more sense outside of a bias—more that given a clean slate, “There might be laws of physics we can’t detect because they don’t function in a universe where they’ve already countered entropy to a new start state” is about equal to “Maybe there’s a Deity figure that decided it wanted to start the universe” are about equal in my mind. And to be fair, ‘deity figure’ could be equivalent to ‘Higher-level universe’s programmer making a computer game.’ Or this could all be a simulation, and none of it’s actually real, or, or, or…
But the reason that I decide to accept this as a basic assumption is that, eventually, you have to assume that there is truth, and work off of the existing scientific knowledge instead of waiting for brand new world-shattering discoveries in the field of metaphysics. So I keep an interested eye on stuff like brane vibration or cosmic froth, but still assume that entropy happens, and the universe had an actual start.
if Thor came down throwing lightning bolts and etc, and claiming our worship, I’d be… well, admittedly, a little confused, and unsure. That’s not exactly his MO from classic Norse mythology (which I love) and Norse mythology really didn’t have the oomph of world creation that goes together with scientific evidence. I’d have to wonder if he wasn’t a Nephilim or alien playing tricks. (Hi, Stargate SG-1!)
However, I take your meaning. If some deity figure came down and said, “hey, here’s proof,” yeah, I’d have a LOT of re-evaluating to do. It’d depend a lot on circumstances, and what sort of evidence of the past, rather than just pure displays of power, the deity figure could present. What answers does it have to the tough questions? Does it match certain anti-christ elements from Revelations?
Alternatively, what sort of evidence would make me change my mind and become atheist?
I would love to be able to easily say, “Yeah, if this happened, I’d totally change my mind in an instant!” but I am aware that I’m only human, and certain beliefs have momentum in my mind. Negative circumstance certainly won’t do it—I’ve long ago resolved the “Why does a good God allow bad things to happen?” element. Idiotic Christian fanboys won’t do it—I’ve been developing a very careful attitude towards religion and politics in divorcing ideas from the proponents of ideas. And if I had an idea what that proof would be—I’d already be researching it. So I just keep kicking around looking for new stuff to research.
Thank you for the interest!
Sounds like you’ve given this some serious thought and avoided all kinds of failure modes. While I disagree with you and think that there’s probably an interesting discussion here, I agree that this probably isn’t the place to get into it. Welcome to Less Wrong, and I hope you stick around.
I’ve certainly tried, thank you very much. I think that might be the most satisfying reaction I could have hoped to receive. ^_^ I hope to stick around for a good long time, too… this site’s rivaling “TV Tropes” for the ability to completely suck me in for hours at a time without me noticing it.
This sounds interesting. So were you raised an atheist or in some non-Christian religious tradition? Is the culture of your home country predominantly non-Christian? Conversion to a new belief system based on evidence is an interesting phenomenon because it is so relatively rare. The vast majority of religious people simply adopt the religion they were raised in or the dominant religion of the surrounding culture which is one piece of evidence that religious belief is not generally arrived at through rational thinking. Counter examples to this trend offer a case study in the kinds of evidence that can actually change people’s minds.
Apologies, I’m not as interesting as that. I changed a lot of beliefs about the belief system, but I was nonetheless still raised Christian. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise—pre-existing developmental bias is part of the ‘basic irrational hunch’ part of the sentence.
I agree that religious belief is not generally arrived at through rational thinking, however—whether that religious belief is ‘there is a God, and I know who it is!’ or ‘there is no God’. This is evidenced, for instance, the time I was standing there at church, just before services, and enjoying the fine day, and someone steps up next to me. “Isn’t it a beautiful morning?” he asks. “Yes it is!” I reply. “Makes you wonder how someone can see this and still be an atheist,” he says.
( head turns slooooowly ) “I think it’s possible to appreciate a beautiful morning and still be atheist...” “Yes, but then who would have made something so beautiful?” ( mouth opens to talk ) ( mouth works silently ) “I believe the assumption would be, no one.” “And what kind of sense would that make?” “I’d love to have that discussion, but service is about to start, and it’s too beautiful a morning for what I suspect would be an argument.”
See also: Epistemic luck.
Ah, yes. that rather strikes a chord, indeed. Thank you.
I like this argument. If there was such a deity, it could make certain it is known (and rediscovered when forgotten). The deity could embed this information into the universe in any numbers of ways. These ways could be accessed by humans, but misinterpreted. Evidence for this is the world religions, which have many major beliefs in common, but differ in the details. Christianity, being somewhat mature as a religion and having developed concurrently with rational and scientific thought, could have a reliable interpretation in certain aspects.
Thank you very much, I appreciate that.
however, I’m following from an assumption of a deity that wants to be known and moving forward. It certainly doesn’t suffice for showing that a deity figure does exist, because if we follow the assumption of a deity that doesn’t want to be known, or a lack of a deity, then any religion which has withstood the test of time is likely the one with the fewest obvious flaws. It’s rather like evolution of an idea rather than a creature.
However, the existence of such a religion does provide for the possibility of a deity figure.
I used the word ‘embed’ because this implies the deity could (possibly) be working within the rules of physics. The relationship between the deity, physical time and whether it is immediately involved in human events would be an interesting digression. The timelessness of physics is a relevant set of posts for that.
I agree with your comments. Regarding the strength of implications in either direction, (the possibility of a deity given a vigorous religion or the possibility of a true religion given a deity), there are two main questions:
if a deity exists, should we expect that it cares if it is known?
does the world actually look like a world in which a deity would be revealing itself? (though as you cautioned, such a world may or may not actually have a deity within it)
If this thread is likely to attenuate here, these questions are left for academic interest …