Insofar as scientists have disproved dozens of theories for why certain things happen, I don’t see a reason why scientists wouldn’t be able to conclude that god was doing the orphan thing.
In the same way as scientists could conclude that God is directly responsible for the strong nuclear force?
While I don’t deny that it could be advanced as a theory, I don’t see how it could be tested. And I don’t see a theory gaining much traction unless it can make falsifiable predictions.
Plus it’d probably be a big tip-off that the only holy book with no factual errors also mentioned the orphans being fireproof thing.
If orphans really were fireproof, I’d expect it to be mentioned, at least in passing, in most holy books. Mainly because orphans being fireproof is something that people will tend to notice.
While I don’t deny that it could be advanced as a theory, I don’t see how it could be tested.
If your hypothesis cannot be tested, then why does it even matter whether it’s true or false ? Since you cannot—by definition—ever find out whether it is true, what’s the point in believing or disbelieving in it ?
To put it another way, what’s the difference between believing in a god who is so subtle that all of his actions are completely indistinguishable from inaction; and in not believing in any gods at all ?
If your hypothesis cannot be tested, then why does it even matter whether it’s true or false ?
There’s a difference between finding out whether something is true, and finding enough evidence to prove to my neighbour that that thing is true. Fishermen are notorious for exaggerated descriptions of the fish that got away; should I go fishing, and a fish get away, I have no doubt that few of my neighbours would believe my assertions with regard to the fish’s size (even if I somehow managed to measure it before it escaped)
To put it another way, what’s the difference between believing in a god who is so subtle that all of his actions are completely indistinguishable from inaction; and in not believing in any gods at all ?
Well, for one thing, it affects my actions in non-trivial ways. My actions affect other people, and they then affect other people… and so on, rippling out.
One difference, for example, is the fact that we are having this conversation in the first place.
There’s a difference between finding out whether something is true, and finding enough evidence to prove to my neighbour that that thing is true.
What’s the difference ? I mean, obviously your neighbour could be entirely irrational and refuse to listen to anything you say. However, let’s pretend instead that your neighbour is a rational, intelligent, and patient person… who also happens to be from Mars. He speaks English, but he doesn’t really know all that much about our human culture. He does know about physics, though, since physics is the same on any planet.
So, you tell your Martian neighbour, “I believe that God is directly responsible for the strong nuclear force”. Naturally, he asks you, “who is this God guy ?”; after you’ve explained that, he asks you, “ok, and why do you believe that ?”. What’s your answer ?
Well, for one thing, it affects my actions in non-trivial ways.
How so ? Let’s say there exist two parallel worlds. In one world, a perfectly unfalsifiable god exists; all of his actions are indistinguishable from chance. This is our world; let’s call it Alpha. The other world is called Beta, and it contains no gods at all. The two worlds are completely identical; except that, whenever something happens in Alpha, sometimes the god is responsible, and sometimes it just happens for mundane natural causes. When the same thing also happens in Beta, it’s always due to mundane natural causes.
If you were somehow transported in your sleep from Alpha to Beta, how could you tell that this had occurred ? If you could tell, what would you do differently ?
What’s the difference ? I mean, obviously your neighbour could be entirely irrational and refuse to listen to anything you say.
Let us say that I have gone fishing. I return from my fishing trip, and describe to my neighbour how I hooked a six-foot-long great white shark, but my fishing line snapped and it got away. Unfortunately, I failed to get a photograph or any other piece of hard evidence.
Assume that my neighbour is rational, intelligent, and patient. Would he be convinced by my account?
after you’ve explained that, he asks you, “ok, and why do you believe that ?”. What’s your answer ?
Short version; I started with a high prior, and certain experiences in my life have caused me to update that original prior in an upward direction.
This is our world; let’s call it Alpha. The other world is called Beta, and it contains no gods at all. The two worlds are completely identical; except that, whenever something happens in Alpha, sometimes the god is responsible, and sometimes it just happens for mundane natural causes. When the same thing also happens in Beta, it’s always due to mundane natural causes.
...hold on a minute. You are postulating that there is some way to set up the natural laws of a universe such that everything that God would want to do in Alpha happens anyway, even without direct involvement. Should that be the case, an omniscient being would know how to set up the physical laws in such a way; and an omnipotent being would be able to do that, and it would probably be much less effort than having to go back and fiddle with the universe every now and then.
Assume that my neighbour is rational, intelligent, and patient. Would he be convinced by my account ?
No. Should he be ?
That said, one big difference (among many) between shark-fishing and religion, however, is that in the shark-fishing scenario you do have plenty of fairly unambiguous evidence for the shark’s existence (despite failing to bring back any of it). Furthermore, the exercise is repeatable; you could go into the same waters, and attempt to find another shark. You could consult other fishermen, and look at the photographs of any sharks they may have caught. You could talk to marine biologists, and ask them how likely you were to catch a shark… etc., etc. You don’t need to rely solely on your own thoughts or feelings; there is objective evidence that you can collect.
You are postulating that there is some way to set up the natural laws of a universe such that everything that God would want to do in Alpha happens anyway
Remember hat the stuff that Alpha’s god does is indistinguishable from chance. Thus, for example, if I roll over 7 tiny pebbles on my way to work in Alpha, it could very well be that the 7th pebble was placed there by Alpha’s god. I may not encounter that pebble in Beta; or I may encounter 8 pebbles. However, by definition, that 7th pebble (or lack thereof) will have no significant effect on anything.
Alpha’s god could not, for example, affect the outcome of dice rolls so that the unrighteous sinners are less likely to roll 7s in games of chance; I mean, he could, but according to out scenario, he wouldn’t.
That said, your scenario could be relevant as well. Given that we currently have no access to the Multiverse (assuming one exists), how would you distinguish a Universe that was created by a god who set everything up and then went away; from a Universe that arose due to purely undirected natural mechanisms ?
You are right that there are a lot of differences between shark-fishing and religion; my point is merely that evidence which convinces one rational human being may yet be insufficient to convince another, when experienced by the first but merely communicated to the second.
You don’t need to rely solely on your own thoughts or feelings; there is objective evidence that you can collect.
This is one thing that is not a difference between shark-fishing and religion. There is objective evidence that can be collected. Consider, for example, comparing the rate of the appearance of uncorrupted corpses between virtuous and nonvirtuous people; if virtuous people are more likely to leave uncorrupted corpses, then that’s a bit of a hint.
Remember hat the stuff that Alpha’s god does is indistinguishable from chance. Thus, for example, if I roll over 7 tiny pebbles on my way to work in Alpha, it could very well be that the 7th pebble was placed there by Alpha’s god. I may not encounter that pebble in Beta; or I may encounter 8 pebbles. However, by definition, that 7th pebble (or lack thereof) will have no significant effect on anything.
Which raises the question of why put that seventh pebble there in the first place?
A lot of miracles are done with clear agency; most of Jesus’ miracles, for example, were done with the clear purpose of proving his credentials as Son of God. Many other people performed miracles as signs of particular divine favour.
If, in Alpha, there exists a God who has a plan, then I would expect that the results of most miracles would tend to work towards the outcome of that plan. (Which would mean that it might be possible to detect agency in Alpha, if one knew what the plan was).
So, for example, if instead of a seventh pebble you drive over a nail, then have to go get your tyre patched, and at the tyre shop you meet someone and interact with him in some way that furthers Alpha’s God’s plans… then you might not be able to prove (or even notice) that it was a miracle, but the effect still makes Alpha divergent from Beta.
That said, your scenario could be relevant as well. Given that we currently have no access to the Multiverse (assuming one exists), how would you distinguish a Universe that was created by a god who set everything up and then went away; from a Universe that arose due to purely undirected natural mechanisms ?
Very tricky.
If an omniscient, omnipotent being exists, then He exists equally in all reachable universes. Therefore, either all universes have the same God ruling over them, or none do.
Which means that, whichever case is true, we only have examples of a single class of universe.
So. If God exists, then it is reasonable to assume that He has some plan for every universe. The plans may differ from universe to universe, or may be the same in every universe.
If I assume that there are similar plans for a number of universes, then it seems likely that there are psychologically similar beings existing in a number of universes; that is, they may look alien, but they will have understandable motivations (not necessarily immediately understandable).
So. I estimate the probability that non-human intelligent life (whether in this or another universe) has an understandable psychology is higher if God exists than if not.
evidence which convinces one rational human being may yet be insufficient to convince another, when experienced by the first but merely communicated to the second.
I agree, but then, how reliable are your own experiences ?
To use a rather trivial example, I have on numerous occasions woken up from sleep with an absolute, unshakable conviction that I was late for some critical appointment or other. I would then check the calendar, and see that the appointment either already happened several years in the past (along the lines of “attend college physics exam”); or was entirely imaginary (along the lines of “inspect warp core”). And yet, even at that very moment, I would still be experiencing a strong conviction that I need to go and take that test / inspect that warp core right now. How do you know whether your experiences are likewise confused ?
There is objective evidence that can be collected. Consider, for example, comparing the rate of the appearance of uncorrupted corpses between virtuous and nonvirtuous people; if virtuous people are more likely to leave uncorrupted corpses, then that’s a bit of a hint.
As far as I know, corpses of virtuous people and those of iniquitous people decay at the same rate in our own Universe. Orphans aren’t all that likely to be fireproof, either (although I’d expect a slightly higher proportion of orphans to have survived at least one fire, sadly). Multiple studies have failed to find any effect of intercessory prayer (by comparison with placebo). So, can you think of any reasonably unambiguous evidence for the existence of a god in our current Universe ?
Which would mean that it might be possible to detect agency in Alpha, if one knew what the plan was.
Let’s assume that we don’t know what the plan is (which, as far as I understand the Christian belief system, we do not). Would it still be possible to detect agency in Alpha ?
So. I estimate the probability that non-human intelligent life (whether in this or another universe) has an understandable psychology is higher if God exists than if not.
Right, that would be an interesting piece of evidence, but it’s unobtainable for now. In addition, I would expect all intelligent life within our own Universe to have at least some similarities. We all live in the same cosmos, we all are subject to the same laws of physics, so it’s reasonable to assume that our brains would evolve in functionally similar ways. That’s pure speculation, though, since the only intelligent life we know of is our own.
I agree, but then, how reliable are your own experiences ?
I tend to assume that my own experiences are more reliable than second-hand data (people telling me about their experiences). This is largely because when I start questioning my own experiences, I quickly find myself questioning reality as a whole; whether anything that I observe actually exists or not.
I think that, in order to retain a functional relationship with reality, I have to assume that my memories and experiences are mostly true; that is, that the majority of them are true, and any contradictions in my memories are best resolved in the manner that results in the fewest of my memories being false.
While I don’t experience convictions that I am late for imaginary appointments, as you do, I have on occasion woken up convinced that I am late for an important appointment which is due the following day, or late that evening. In such a case, I find that the conviction vanishes almost immediately on checking the time, and finding that the time for the appointment has not yet arrived.
As far as I know, corpses of virtuous people and those of iniquitous people decay at the same rate in our own Universe.
While this would certainly be the prediction of a hypothetical atheist physicist, I would like to ask; do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
I do not know of a statistical study of rates of corruption in the bodies of (say) canonised saints versus people lawfully executed for criminal activity, but this is a study which could in theory have been completed.
So, can you think of any reasonably unambiguous evidence for the existence of a god in our current Universe ?
Nothing more convincing than the Miracle of Lanciano, which I’m pretty sure I’ve already mentioned.
Which would mean that it might be possible to detect agency in Alpha, if one knew what the plan was.
Let’s assume that we don’t know what the plan is (which, as far as I understand the Christian belief system, we do not). Would it still be possible to detect agency in Alpha ?
I don’t know.
I can’t think of any way, off the top of my head, to do it; but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Right, that would be an interesting piece of evidence, but it’s unobtainable for now.
I know. I don’t think I can present any predictions that can be easily and rapidly checked, though; since I don’t know the purpose of the universe.
And if very convincing evidence of God’s existence was easy to find, then churches would present it for all the world to see; in much the same way as the Bible is presented for all the world to see.
In addition, I would expect all intelligent life within our own Universe to have at least some similarities. We all live in the same cosmos, we all are subject to the same laws of physics, so it’s reasonable to assume that our brains would evolve in functionally similar ways.
In the same way as it’s reasonable to assume that humans and centipedes, living in the same environment on the same planet, would evolve similar body structures?
I think that, in order to retain a functional relationship with reality, I have to assume that my memories and experiences are mostly true...
Given a specific memory or experience, how would you estimate the probability of it being true ?
While this would certainly be the prediction of a hypothetical atheist physicist, I would like to ask; do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
No, but this seems highly likely, given what we know about basic biology (and we do know quite a lot, down to the molecular level). That said, if you are making the positive claim that corpses decay at different rates based on the morality of the deceased, then the burden of proof is on you, since your hypothesis is more complex than the null hypothesis.
Nothing more convincing than the Miracle of Lanciano, which I’m pretty sure I’ve already mentioned.
I am unfamiliar with this specific miracle, but Wikipedia says that it was reported to occur “around 700”, and that at least one source confirms the items in question to consist of human tissue. I don’t mean to sound too negative, but… is this really the best evidence for the existence of miracles that you’ve got ? If so, then shouldn’t you be—just for example—a Hellinist instead of a Christian, given that we’ve found the entire city of Troy, which was described in the Iliad ? That’s an entire city, after all, not just some blood globules...
And if very convincing evidence of God’s existence was easy to find, then churches would present it for all the world to see...
Right, so it’s starting to sound more and more that the Christian God is kind of like my hypothetical Alpha-god. He may exist, but the actions he takes are so subtle that no one has been able to detect them. By comparison, we are at the point now where we can detect individual neutrinos. Given this, I’ve got to go back to my original question: does it even matter whether such a god exists, if he has an even smaller effect on our affairs than neutrinos do ?
In the same way as it’s reasonable to assume that humans and centipedes, living in the same environment on the same planet, would evolve similar body structures?
Yes, that’s a pretty good analogy. Both organisms have respiratory and digestive systems; articulated legs for means of locomotion on hard surfaces; optical/chemical/tacticle/etc. sensors; and even sexual reproduction systems (which serve similar functions despite being mechanically very different).
Similarly, I would expect any kind of an intelligent life to have a similar grasp of concepts such as object permanence, causality, and communication (just to name a few off the top of my head). Of course, if these aliens have any kind of technology, then I’d expect them to have notions of e.g. physics and chemistry that are compatible with ours.
There are many kinds of limbs and skeletons and eyes in the world, but there’s only one physics. Hydrogen is still hydrogen, even on Mars.
Given a specific memory or experience, how would you estimate the probability of it being true ?
If I detect no contradictions with other memories or experiences, I treat it as true until some evidence is provided to show that it may be false. I imagine that would count as a very high prior.
No, but this seems highly likely, given what we know about basic biology (and we do know quite a lot, down to the molecular level). That said, if you are making the positive claim that corpses decay at different rates based on the morality of the deceased, then the burden of proof is on you, since your hypothesis is more complex than the null hypothesis.
Pity.
Unfortunately, I can provide no data in support of the hypothesis, either. You’re right about the burden of proof; but I don’t think I’m quite ready to go around digging up dead bodies to try to produce a proper answer to this question just yet. And a quick and very cursory google search has failed to pick out anyone else who’s tried.
I am unfamiliar with this specific miracle, but Wikipedia says that it was reported to occur “around 700”, and that at least one source confirms the items in question to consist of human tissue. I don’t mean to sound too negative, but… is this really the best evidence for the existence of miracles that you’ve got ?
It’s the best that I can find in, oh, half a minute on Wikipedia. It’s quite probably not the best that there is.
If so, then shouldn’t you be—just for example—a Hellinist instead of a Christian, given that we’ve found the entire city of Troy, which was described in the Iliad ? That’s an entire city, after all, not just some blood globules...
We also know where Egypt is. And Bethlehem. And Nazareth. All of which were placed mentioned in the Gospels (and in the case of Egypt, it’s an entire country, not just a city). The existence of a place mentioned in ancient writing is, at best, very weak evidence that the writing is true.
The blood globules have nothing to do with my belief in Christianity. They’re just the best evidence that I can find, in a very brief visit to Wikipedia, that at least one miracle occurred at some point in the past.
Right, so it’s starting to sound more and more that the Christian God is kind of like my hypothetical Alpha-god. He may exist, but the actions he takes are so subtle that no one has been able to detect them.
No. Plenty of people claim to have been able to detect them; all the people who saw the Miracle of the Sun, for example. There may have been millions more people who could have detected His actions, had they just looked in the right place, but they didn’t. (That was likely intentional; omniscience means knowing where people won’t look for tampering, after all).
By comparison, we are at the point now where we can detect individual neutrinos. Given this, I’ve got to go back to my original question: does it even matter whether such a god exists, if he has an even smaller effect on our affairs than neutrinos do ?
Detectability is not necessary correlated with how much effect something has on our affairs.
In the same way as it’s reasonable to assume that humans and centipedes, living in the same environment on the same planet, would evolve similar body structures?
Yes, that’s a pretty good analogy. Both organisms have respiratory and digestive systems; articulated legs for means of locomotion on hard surfaces; optical/chemical/tacticle/etc. sensors; and even sexual reproduction systems (which serve similar functions despite being mechanically very different).
Similarly, I would expect any kind of an intelligent life to have a similar grasp of concepts such as object permanence, causality, and communication (just to name a few off the top of my head). Of course, if these aliens have any kind of technology, then I’d expect them to have notions of e.g. physics and chemistry that are compatible with ours.
If I detect no contradictions with other memories or experiences
That’s the same method I use, except that I also include other people’s experiences. For example, I’ve personally never tried jumping off a bridge; but I am reluctant to try this, since, based on what I know of biology, physics, and, indeed, attempts to do so by other people, I know that the experience will likely be fatal.
I think that the main difference between you and me is that you place an extremely high level of confidence on your own experiences. Is that right ? If so, what is the reason ? After all, you are a regular human just like anyone else, so what is it that makes your experiences so much more reliable than those of other people ?
You’re right about the burden of proof; but I don’t think I’m quite ready to go around digging up dead bodies to try to produce a proper answer to this question just yet.
Since the burden of proof is on you; and since no evidence exists; are you not then compelled to disbelieve in the proposition ? By analogy, it is possible that I personally am immune to the effects of jumping off of a bridge, but, in the absence of evidence for this positive claim, I am forced to reject it (despite its obvious appeal).
They’re just the best evidence that I can find, in a very brief visit to Wikipedia, that at least one miracle occurred at some point in the past.
What makes you think that the best explanation for all the fact is, in fact, “a miracle occurred”, as opposed anything else ? Given that other events (honest mistakes, deliberate fraud, etc.) occur much more often than miracles (i.e., they have higher priors); and given that the evidence is compatible with all of these explanations; why do you keep the “miracle” explanation and discard the others ?
There may have been millions more people who could have detected His actions, had they just looked in the right place, but they didn’t… That was likely intentional...
Wait, doesn’t this support what I said ? It sounds like your God does indeed make his actions “so subtle that no one has been able to detect them” (as I put it originally), just like my hypothetical Alpha-God.
Detectability is not necessary correlated with how much effect something has on our affairs.
How can something be completely undetectable and yet have any effect on anything ? Effects are how we detect things.
That’s the same method I use, except that I also include other people’s experiences. For example, I’ve personally never tried jumping off a bridge; but I am reluctant to try this, since, based on what I know of biology, physics, and, indeed, attempts to do so by other people, I know that the experience will likely be fatal.
At the moment I, too, am reluctant to try jumping off a bridge, for similar reasons. However, if I had jumped off a bridge and inexplicably survived, I would weigh that experience very heavily in future decisions with regard to whether or not to jump off bridges.
I don’t ignore other people’s reported experiences; I just consider my own experiences a far more reliable indicator of reality. This is partially because other people’s experiences are by necessity incomplete; it’s very hard for me to be sure that someone else has told me every detail that I would consider important about a given situation.
Since the burden of proof is on you; and since no evidence exists; are you not then compelled to disbelieve in the proposition ?
No. I am merely in no position to compel your belief in the proposition, and etiquette requires that I should not claim that the question is resolved in my favour. (Which it isn’t). My options at this point are to either go out and gather evidence, or to drop the question entirely.
As I understand it, etiquette does permit you to assume that the question is resolved in favour of the null hypothesis; but without proof, you cannot compel my disbelief in the proposition.
What makes you think that the best explanation for all the fact is, in fact, “a miracle occurred”, as opposed anything else ? Given that other events (honest mistakes, deliberate fraud, etc.) occur much more often than miracles (i.e., they have higher priors); and given that the evidence is compatible with all of these explanations; why do you keep the “miracle” explanation and discard the others ?
I don’t discard all the others; I simply consider them less probable than the miracle hypothesis. And the reason for that is that a number of people whose job involves the investigation of miracles, and who have looked far more deeply into the matter than I have (and who would not benefit from incorrectly calling something a miracle and having it later revealedd as a mistake or a fraud) consider it a miracle. In short, I place my confidence in the hands of those I recognise as experts in the field.
That said experts were also largely members of the Catholic clergy does not diminish my confidence in their results, though it may affect yours.
There may have been millions more people who could have detected His actions, had they just looked in the right place, but they didn’t… That was likely intentional...
Wait, doesn’t this support what I said ? It sounds like your God does indeed make his actions “so subtle that no one has been able to detect them” (as I put it originally), just like my hypothetical Alpha-God.
No. Again, people have detected His actions. Consider Moses, for example; when Moses approached the burning bush, he detected God’s actions.
Or consider the monk present at the Miracle of Lanciano; when he saw the bread and wine literally transform into flesh and blood, he detected God’s actions.
Detectability is not necessary correlated with how much effect something has on our affairs.
How can something be completely undetectable and yet have any effect on anything ? Effects are how we detect things.
If it is completely undetectable by any means, then yes, it can have no effect. But something can be hard to detect while still having a great effect.
Consider, for example, a man living on a mountaintop. He finds it very easy to detect the stars; he sees them often. But they have little to no effect on him. On the other hand, he finds it very hard to detect the radioactivity of the rocks around him (he would need to go to the trouble of getting a geiger counter); but if the rocks are signifiantly radioactive, that could potentially have a very large long-term effect on him.
So, while I agree that something has to be detectable in order to have any effect (on the basis that it can be detected by its effect), it is nonetheless possible for something to be hard to detect while having a very large effect.
In the same way as scientists could conclude that God is directly responsible for the strong nuclear force?
While I don’t deny that it could be advanced as a theory, I don’t see how it could be tested. And I don’t see a theory gaining much traction unless it can make falsifiable predictions.
If orphans really were fireproof, I’d expect it to be mentioned, at least in passing, in most holy books. Mainly because orphans being fireproof is something that people will tend to notice.
If your hypothesis cannot be tested, then why does it even matter whether it’s true or false ? Since you cannot—by definition—ever find out whether it is true, what’s the point in believing or disbelieving in it ?
To put it another way, what’s the difference between believing in a god who is so subtle that all of his actions are completely indistinguishable from inaction; and in not believing in any gods at all ?
There’s a difference between finding out whether something is true, and finding enough evidence to prove to my neighbour that that thing is true. Fishermen are notorious for exaggerated descriptions of the fish that got away; should I go fishing, and a fish get away, I have no doubt that few of my neighbours would believe my assertions with regard to the fish’s size (even if I somehow managed to measure it before it escaped)
Well, for one thing, it affects my actions in non-trivial ways. My actions affect other people, and they then affect other people… and so on, rippling out.
One difference, for example, is the fact that we are having this conversation in the first place.
What’s the difference ? I mean, obviously your neighbour could be entirely irrational and refuse to listen to anything you say. However, let’s pretend instead that your neighbour is a rational, intelligent, and patient person… who also happens to be from Mars. He speaks English, but he doesn’t really know all that much about our human culture. He does know about physics, though, since physics is the same on any planet.
So, you tell your Martian neighbour, “I believe that God is directly responsible for the strong nuclear force”. Naturally, he asks you, “who is this God guy ?”; after you’ve explained that, he asks you, “ok, and why do you believe that ?”. What’s your answer ?
How so ? Let’s say there exist two parallel worlds. In one world, a perfectly unfalsifiable god exists; all of his actions are indistinguishable from chance. This is our world; let’s call it Alpha. The other world is called Beta, and it contains no gods at all. The two worlds are completely identical; except that, whenever something happens in Alpha, sometimes the god is responsible, and sometimes it just happens for mundane natural causes. When the same thing also happens in Beta, it’s always due to mundane natural causes.
If you were somehow transported in your sleep from Alpha to Beta, how could you tell that this had occurred ? If you could tell, what would you do differently ?
Let us say that I have gone fishing. I return from my fishing trip, and describe to my neighbour how I hooked a six-foot-long great white shark, but my fishing line snapped and it got away. Unfortunately, I failed to get a photograph or any other piece of hard evidence.
Assume that my neighbour is rational, intelligent, and patient. Would he be convinced by my account?
Short version; I started with a high prior, and certain experiences in my life have caused me to update that original prior in an upward direction.
...hold on a minute. You are postulating that there is some way to set up the natural laws of a universe such that everything that God would want to do in Alpha happens anyway, even without direct involvement. Should that be the case, an omniscient being would know how to set up the physical laws in such a way; and an omnipotent being would be able to do that, and it would probably be much less effort than having to go back and fiddle with the universe every now and then.
No. Should he be ?
That said, one big difference (among many) between shark-fishing and religion, however, is that in the shark-fishing scenario you do have plenty of fairly unambiguous evidence for the shark’s existence (despite failing to bring back any of it). Furthermore, the exercise is repeatable; you could go into the same waters, and attempt to find another shark. You could consult other fishermen, and look at the photographs of any sharks they may have caught. You could talk to marine biologists, and ask them how likely you were to catch a shark… etc., etc. You don’t need to rely solely on your own thoughts or feelings; there is objective evidence that you can collect.
Remember hat the stuff that Alpha’s god does is indistinguishable from chance. Thus, for example, if I roll over 7 tiny pebbles on my way to work in Alpha, it could very well be that the 7th pebble was placed there by Alpha’s god. I may not encounter that pebble in Beta; or I may encounter 8 pebbles. However, by definition, that 7th pebble (or lack thereof) will have no significant effect on anything.
Alpha’s god could not, for example, affect the outcome of dice rolls so that the unrighteous sinners are less likely to roll 7s in games of chance; I mean, he could, but according to out scenario, he wouldn’t.
That said, your scenario could be relevant as well. Given that we currently have no access to the Multiverse (assuming one exists), how would you distinguish a Universe that was created by a god who set everything up and then went away; from a Universe that arose due to purely undirected natural mechanisms ?
No, he shouldn’t.
You are right that there are a lot of differences between shark-fishing and religion; my point is merely that evidence which convinces one rational human being may yet be insufficient to convince another, when experienced by the first but merely communicated to the second.
This is one thing that is not a difference between shark-fishing and religion. There is objective evidence that can be collected. Consider, for example, comparing the rate of the appearance of uncorrupted corpses between virtuous and nonvirtuous people; if virtuous people are more likely to leave uncorrupted corpses, then that’s a bit of a hint.
Which raises the question of why put that seventh pebble there in the first place?
A lot of miracles are done with clear agency; most of Jesus’ miracles, for example, were done with the clear purpose of proving his credentials as Son of God. Many other people performed miracles as signs of particular divine favour.
If, in Alpha, there exists a God who has a plan, then I would expect that the results of most miracles would tend to work towards the outcome of that plan. (Which would mean that it might be possible to detect agency in Alpha, if one knew what the plan was).
So, for example, if instead of a seventh pebble you drive over a nail, then have to go get your tyre patched, and at the tyre shop you meet someone and interact with him in some way that furthers Alpha’s God’s plans… then you might not be able to prove (or even notice) that it was a miracle, but the effect still makes Alpha divergent from Beta.
Very tricky.
If an omniscient, omnipotent being exists, then He exists equally in all reachable universes. Therefore, either all universes have the same God ruling over them, or none do.
Which means that, whichever case is true, we only have examples of a single class of universe.
So. If God exists, then it is reasonable to assume that He has some plan for every universe. The plans may differ from universe to universe, or may be the same in every universe.
If I assume that there are similar plans for a number of universes, then it seems likely that there are psychologically similar beings existing in a number of universes; that is, they may look alien, but they will have understandable motivations (not necessarily immediately understandable).
So. I estimate the probability that non-human intelligent life (whether in this or another universe) has an understandable psychology is higher if God exists than if not.
I agree, but then, how reliable are your own experiences ?
To use a rather trivial example, I have on numerous occasions woken up from sleep with an absolute, unshakable conviction that I was late for some critical appointment or other. I would then check the calendar, and see that the appointment either already happened several years in the past (along the lines of “attend college physics exam”); or was entirely imaginary (along the lines of “inspect warp core”). And yet, even at that very moment, I would still be experiencing a strong conviction that I need to go and take that test / inspect that warp core right now. How do you know whether your experiences are likewise confused ?
As far as I know, corpses of virtuous people and those of iniquitous people decay at the same rate in our own Universe. Orphans aren’t all that likely to be fireproof, either (although I’d expect a slightly higher proportion of orphans to have survived at least one fire, sadly). Multiple studies have failed to find any effect of intercessory prayer (by comparison with placebo). So, can you think of any reasonably unambiguous evidence for the existence of a god in our current Universe ?
Let’s assume that we don’t know what the plan is (which, as far as I understand the Christian belief system, we do not). Would it still be possible to detect agency in Alpha ?
Right, that would be an interesting piece of evidence, but it’s unobtainable for now. In addition, I would expect all intelligent life within our own Universe to have at least some similarities. We all live in the same cosmos, we all are subject to the same laws of physics, so it’s reasonable to assume that our brains would evolve in functionally similar ways. That’s pure speculation, though, since the only intelligent life we know of is our own.
I tend to assume that my own experiences are more reliable than second-hand data (people telling me about their experiences). This is largely because when I start questioning my own experiences, I quickly find myself questioning reality as a whole; whether anything that I observe actually exists or not.
I think that, in order to retain a functional relationship with reality, I have to assume that my memories and experiences are mostly true; that is, that the majority of them are true, and any contradictions in my memories are best resolved in the manner that results in the fewest of my memories being false.
While I don’t experience convictions that I am late for imaginary appointments, as you do, I have on occasion woken up convinced that I am late for an important appointment which is due the following day, or late that evening. In such a case, I find that the conviction vanishes almost immediately on checking the time, and finding that the time for the appointment has not yet arrived.
While this would certainly be the prediction of a hypothetical atheist physicist, I would like to ask; do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
I do not know of a statistical study of rates of corruption in the bodies of (say) canonised saints versus people lawfully executed for criminal activity, but this is a study which could in theory have been completed.
Nothing more convincing than the Miracle of Lanciano, which I’m pretty sure I’ve already mentioned.
I don’t know.
I can’t think of any way, off the top of my head, to do it; but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
I know. I don’t think I can present any predictions that can be easily and rapidly checked, though; since I don’t know the purpose of the universe.
And if very convincing evidence of God’s existence was easy to find, then churches would present it for all the world to see; in much the same way as the Bible is presented for all the world to see.
In the same way as it’s reasonable to assume that humans and centipedes, living in the same environment on the same planet, would evolve similar body structures?
Given a specific memory or experience, how would you estimate the probability of it being true ?
No, but this seems highly likely, given what we know about basic biology (and we do know quite a lot, down to the molecular level). That said, if you are making the positive claim that corpses decay at different rates based on the morality of the deceased, then the burden of proof is on you, since your hypothesis is more complex than the null hypothesis.
I am unfamiliar with this specific miracle, but Wikipedia says that it was reported to occur “around 700”, and that at least one source confirms the items in question to consist of human tissue. I don’t mean to sound too negative, but… is this really the best evidence for the existence of miracles that you’ve got ? If so, then shouldn’t you be—just for example—a Hellinist instead of a Christian, given that we’ve found the entire city of Troy, which was described in the Iliad ? That’s an entire city, after all, not just some blood globules...
Right, so it’s starting to sound more and more that the Christian God is kind of like my hypothetical Alpha-god. He may exist, but the actions he takes are so subtle that no one has been able to detect them. By comparison, we are at the point now where we can detect individual neutrinos. Given this, I’ve got to go back to my original question: does it even matter whether such a god exists, if he has an even smaller effect on our affairs than neutrinos do ?
Yes, that’s a pretty good analogy. Both organisms have respiratory and digestive systems; articulated legs for means of locomotion on hard surfaces; optical/chemical/tacticle/etc. sensors; and even sexual reproduction systems (which serve similar functions despite being mechanically very different).
Similarly, I would expect any kind of an intelligent life to have a similar grasp of concepts such as object permanence, causality, and communication (just to name a few off the top of my head). Of course, if these aliens have any kind of technology, then I’d expect them to have notions of e.g. physics and chemistry that are compatible with ours.
There are many kinds of limbs and skeletons and eyes in the world, but there’s only one physics. Hydrogen is still hydrogen, even on Mars.
If I detect no contradictions with other memories or experiences, I treat it as true until some evidence is provided to show that it may be false. I imagine that would count as a very high prior.
Pity.
Unfortunately, I can provide no data in support of the hypothesis, either. You’re right about the burden of proof; but I don’t think I’m quite ready to go around digging up dead bodies to try to produce a proper answer to this question just yet. And a quick and very cursory google search has failed to pick out anyone else who’s tried.
It’s the best that I can find in, oh, half a minute on Wikipedia. It’s quite probably not the best that there is.
We also know where Egypt is. And Bethlehem. And Nazareth. All of which were placed mentioned in the Gospels (and in the case of Egypt, it’s an entire country, not just a city). The existence of a place mentioned in ancient writing is, at best, very weak evidence that the writing is true.
The blood globules have nothing to do with my belief in Christianity. They’re just the best evidence that I can find, in a very brief visit to Wikipedia, that at least one miracle occurred at some point in the past.
No. Plenty of people claim to have been able to detect them; all the people who saw the Miracle of the Sun, for example. There may have been millions more people who could have detected His actions, had they just looked in the right place, but they didn’t. (That was likely intentional; omniscience means knowing where people won’t look for tampering, after all).
Detectability is not necessary correlated with how much effect something has on our affairs.
...you make a very good point here.
That’s the same method I use, except that I also include other people’s experiences. For example, I’ve personally never tried jumping off a bridge; but I am reluctant to try this, since, based on what I know of biology, physics, and, indeed, attempts to do so by other people, I know that the experience will likely be fatal.
I think that the main difference between you and me is that you place an extremely high level of confidence on your own experiences. Is that right ? If so, what is the reason ? After all, you are a regular human just like anyone else, so what is it that makes your experiences so much more reliable than those of other people ?
Since the burden of proof is on you; and since no evidence exists; are you not then compelled to disbelieve in the proposition ? By analogy, it is possible that I personally am immune to the effects of jumping off of a bridge, but, in the absence of evidence for this positive claim, I am forced to reject it (despite its obvious appeal).
What makes you think that the best explanation for all the fact is, in fact, “a miracle occurred”, as opposed anything else ? Given that other events (honest mistakes, deliberate fraud, etc.) occur much more often than miracles (i.e., they have higher priors); and given that the evidence is compatible with all of these explanations; why do you keep the “miracle” explanation and discard the others ?
Wait, doesn’t this support what I said ? It sounds like your God does indeed make his actions “so subtle that no one has been able to detect them” (as I put it originally), just like my hypothetical Alpha-God.
How can something be completely undetectable and yet have any effect on anything ? Effects are how we detect things.
At the moment I, too, am reluctant to try jumping off a bridge, for similar reasons. However, if I had jumped off a bridge and inexplicably survived, I would weigh that experience very heavily in future decisions with regard to whether or not to jump off bridges.
I don’t ignore other people’s reported experiences; I just consider my own experiences a far more reliable indicator of reality. This is partially because other people’s experiences are by necessity incomplete; it’s very hard for me to be sure that someone else has told me every detail that I would consider important about a given situation.
No. I am merely in no position to compel your belief in the proposition, and etiquette requires that I should not claim that the question is resolved in my favour. (Which it isn’t). My options at this point are to either go out and gather evidence, or to drop the question entirely.
As I understand it, etiquette does permit you to assume that the question is resolved in favour of the null hypothesis; but without proof, you cannot compel my disbelief in the proposition.
I don’t discard all the others; I simply consider them less probable than the miracle hypothesis. And the reason for that is that a number of people whose job involves the investigation of miracles, and who have looked far more deeply into the matter than I have (and who would not benefit from incorrectly calling something a miracle and having it later revealedd as a mistake or a fraud) consider it a miracle. In short, I place my confidence in the hands of those I recognise as experts in the field.
That said experts were also largely members of the Catholic clergy does not diminish my confidence in their results, though it may affect yours.
No. Again, people have detected His actions. Consider Moses, for example; when Moses approached the burning bush, he detected God’s actions.
Or consider the monk present at the Miracle of Lanciano; when he saw the bread and wine literally transform into flesh and blood, he detected God’s actions.
If it is completely undetectable by any means, then yes, it can have no effect. But something can be hard to detect while still having a great effect.
Consider, for example, a man living on a mountaintop. He finds it very easy to detect the stars; he sees them often. But they have little to no effect on him. On the other hand, he finds it very hard to detect the radioactivity of the rocks around him (he would need to go to the trouble of getting a geiger counter); but if the rocks are signifiantly radioactive, that could potentially have a very large long-term effect on him.
So, while I agree that something has to be detectable in order to have any effect (on the basis that it can be detected by its effect), it is nonetheless possible for something to be hard to detect while having a very large effect.