I have a hard time thinking of anything UUs generally hold to in terms of doctrine at all
Well, UU is definitely on the “accommodationist” side, which means that, when asked “Are there supernatural things?”, it answers “Shut up, debate is intolerance”. But Unitarians’ behavior does reveal a probability estimate—for example, someone praying for a disease to be cured is certainly putting a non-negligible probability mass on “There are things that listen to me pray and can cure disease”. There are no Official Unitarian Beliefs, but there are beliefs of individual Unitarians and they can be stupid but protected by “Don’t tell me this is stupid or you are evil and intolerant”-type memes. In particular, “Belief in the supernatural is not laughably wrong” is a claim made by many Unitarians.
rabbits chewing cud
Okay, chewing pellets could plausibly be lumped in with chewing one’s cud, though I am Not Happy about things becoming “imagery” the second they’re literally false.
Yes, science can prove dead people cannot rise again… but it cannot prove that an agent with the power to suspend or violate the laws of nature could not perform the trick.
Well, obviously such an agent could. But science can and does prove that such agents just don’t happen. We’ve spent the last three thousand years looking at increasingly robust laws of the universe, and we found out that the universe loves locality and referential-independence and hates special exceptions. We’ve spent the last thousand years looking at accounts of miracles and never found one that held water. At some point you just reach probabilities lower than “There is a pony behind my sofa, but it teleports away whenever you try to look at it, by sheer coincidence”.
To accept most scientific claims (“Schrödinger’s equation predicts...”) and also accept a claim that contradicts their generalization (“And lo, Jesus did violate conservation of energy”) requires rejecting the claim “Induction works”, which is sort of the very core of science.
someone praying for a disease to be cured is certainly putting a non-negligible probability mass on “There are things that listen to me pray and can cure disease”.
Note that P(the effectiveness of prayer is greater than zero | there is no god) > P(the effectiveness of prayer is greater than that of a placebo | there is no god).
Sorry—I still haven’t figured out why standard html doesn’t work here, or how to do blockquotes…
“Well, UU is definitely on the ‘accommodationist’ side,”
Generally, yes
-”which means that, when asked ‘Are there supernatural things?‘, it answers ‘Shut up, debate is intolerance’.”
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean that. I fall closer to the accommodationist side, and I gladly answer, “no, probably not” to that question.
-”Okay, chewing pellets could plausibly be lumped in with chewing one’s cud, though I am Not Happy about things becoming “imagery” the second they’re literally false.”
I’m not a big fan of Christian apologetics—especially of the sort that like to claim that there are no errors in the Bible, but to hold that “rabbits chew their cud” is an example of a falsehood in the Bible requires you assume that the phrase so translated literally means rumination of partially digested material in exactly the way that ruminant species do. This is a terrible assumption, since the language belonged to people who did not understand rumination: why would they have a term term in their vocabulary that literally describes a process they didn’t understand?
There are many examples of real errors in the Bible… it just looks dumb to cite something as an error based solely on an assumption that ancient languages will somehow embed modern classification systems.
-”But science can and does prove that such agents just don’t happen.”
To fix your argument: science proves that such agents don’t arise under ordinary physical law.
Any number of elements of rational thought make the existence of such an agent improbable, but that doesn’t make it specifically anti-scientific to believe in such an agent.
-”requires rejecting the claim ‘Induction works’,”
Nonsense—it merely requires asserting that induction can fail outside the boundaries for which it should apply (in the case of science, outside the boundaries of natural law).
Sorry—I still haven’t figured out why standard html doesn’t work here, or how to do blockquotes...
When you write a comment, at the bottom right of the text box there is a “Help” button that tells you how to to blockquotes, italics, bold, links, and bullet points.
-”But science can and does prove that such agents just don’t happen.” To fix your argument: science proves that such agents don’t arise under ordinary physical law. Any number of elements of rational thought make the existence of such an agent improbable, but that doesn’t make it specifically anti-scientific to believe in such an agent.
If you step outside ordinary physical law, you lose your firm objective ground to stand on. What’s the point of considering the question when the answer is “You can’t disprove me because God is magical and can do anything.” ? Unless there’s firm evidence towards those events happening (which consistently have been disproven historically), then why waste your time?
Personally, it isn’t something I waste my time on… as I mentioned earlier—it is still a mistake, in terms of strict probability, to believe that there have been miracles from God. It just isn’t a specifically anti-scientific mistake. The act of making it is not evidence that a person is unscientific—merely that they are not reasoning well.
Well, UU is definitely on the “accommodationist” side, which means that, when asked “Are there supernatural things?”, it answers “Shut up, debate is intolerance”. But Unitarians’ behavior does reveal a probability estimate—for example, someone praying for a disease to be cured is certainly putting a non-negligible probability mass on “There are things that listen to me pray and can cure disease”. There are no Official Unitarian Beliefs, but there are beliefs of individual Unitarians and they can be stupid but protected by “Don’t tell me this is stupid or you are evil and intolerant”-type memes. In particular, “Belief in the supernatural is not laughably wrong” is a claim made by many Unitarians.
Okay, chewing pellets could plausibly be lumped in with chewing one’s cud, though I am Not Happy about things becoming “imagery” the second they’re literally false.
Well, obviously such an agent could. But science can and does prove that such agents just don’t happen. We’ve spent the last three thousand years looking at increasingly robust laws of the universe, and we found out that the universe loves locality and referential-independence and hates special exceptions. We’ve spent the last thousand years looking at accounts of miracles and never found one that held water. At some point you just reach probabilities lower than “There is a pony behind my sofa, but it teleports away whenever you try to look at it, by sheer coincidence”.
To accept most scientific claims (“Schrödinger’s equation predicts...”) and also accept a claim that contradicts their generalization (“And lo, Jesus did violate conservation of energy”) requires rejecting the claim “Induction works”, which is sort of the very core of science.
Note that P(the effectiveness of prayer is greater than zero | there is no god) > P(the effectiveness of prayer is greater than that of a placebo | there is no god).
I did think of that, but praying for someone else’s disease to be cured, without telling them, certainly qualifies.
Sorry—I still haven’t figured out why standard html doesn’t work here, or how to do blockquotes…
“Well, UU is definitely on the ‘accommodationist’ side,” Generally, yes
-”which means that, when asked ‘Are there supernatural things?‘, it answers ‘Shut up, debate is intolerance’.” I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean that. I fall closer to the accommodationist side, and I gladly answer, “no, probably not” to that question.
-”Okay, chewing pellets could plausibly be lumped in with chewing one’s cud, though I am Not Happy about things becoming “imagery” the second they’re literally false.” I’m not a big fan of Christian apologetics—especially of the sort that like to claim that there are no errors in the Bible, but to hold that “rabbits chew their cud” is an example of a falsehood in the Bible requires you assume that the phrase so translated literally means rumination of partially digested material in exactly the way that ruminant species do. This is a terrible assumption, since the language belonged to people who did not understand rumination: why would they have a term term in their vocabulary that literally describes a process they didn’t understand?
There are many examples of real errors in the Bible… it just looks dumb to cite something as an error based solely on an assumption that ancient languages will somehow embed modern classification systems.
-”But science can and does prove that such agents just don’t happen.” To fix your argument: science proves that such agents don’t arise under ordinary physical law. Any number of elements of rational thought make the existence of such an agent improbable, but that doesn’t make it specifically anti-scientific to believe in such an agent.
-”requires rejecting the claim ‘Induction works’,” Nonsense—it merely requires asserting that induction can fail outside the boundaries for which it should apply (in the case of science, outside the boundaries of natural law).
When you write a comment, at the bottom right of the text box there is a “Help” button that tells you how to to blockquotes, italics, bold, links, and bullet points.
Thank you.
If you step outside ordinary physical law, you lose your firm objective ground to stand on. What’s the point of considering the question when the answer is “You can’t disprove me because God is magical and can do anything.” ? Unless there’s firm evidence towards those events happening (which consistently have been disproven historically), then why waste your time?
Personally, it isn’t something I waste my time on… as I mentioned earlier—it is still a mistake, in terms of strict probability, to believe that there have been miracles from God. It just isn’t a specifically anti-scientific mistake. The act of making it is not evidence that a person is unscientific—merely that they are not reasoning well.