(August 4, 2017 at 11:17 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 4, 2017 at 9:40 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: My general principle is that things are as they appear to be until shown otherwise. That seems to serve me pretty well personally, so all I'm really doing is extending. I've had many uncanny experiences and bizarre improbable encounters, that defy any naturalistic explanation. Every family has some ghost story. I haven't a clue what the alien abduction/UFO phenomena is all about but something is going on that does't fit any model we have for how the world works. Yes, these are anecdotes, but ones that are so widespread, universal, and persistent down through the ages that I cannot simply rule them out as "improbable". They happen all the time. So for me the Bayesian argument doesn't really apply.

I have no clue what Bayesian statistics has to say about it. I tried reading it upthread but my eyes glazed over and I think my chin hit my chest once or twice. My point is simply that I find "I don't know" to be a perfectly acceptable provisional answer, and I don't understand why your particular god should be the default answer in the face of ignorance.

Hi Thump,

Bayesian theorem certainly has it's uses.  However, I think it is often mis-used in a historical sense.  If you do not have other information such as in a future condition, possibly a historic investigation, then Baye's is useful, in telling you what has more likely hood as being true. However with information which supports the less likely view as being true, I do not believe it is good to refute that evidence.   It is about probabilities.  There is also the issue of what assumptions are made in probabilities entered into the formula. 

But the reason, I posted, is that I agree.  We should be able to say I don't know, and that should be the default.  I don't think that arguing a god of the gaps is a good method.  Although that accusation can also be abused, ignoring the reasons why God or something like god is a better explanation.  However I don't think the theist is alone in this.  An atheist's tendency in this situation; I have observed, is to deny, and claim the observer as mistaken, crazy or something similar (or if unable to deny, then well there must be a naturalistic cause (science will figure it out someday).  Here too, I think that often, it may be better to just say I don't know.  Not that there can't be reasons for these answers, but they are a claim that needs to be supported.

-add that to the pile of "atheist tendencies"...... as related by you, right up there with how they always steal your cookies.

I;ve gotta ask, if you find that people are often implying or suggesting that you're crazy....at what point do you wonder whether or not it might be you, rather than them? How does the joke go? First time a guy calls you a horse you hit him in the mouth. Third time, you look into purchasing a saddle?

(August 4, 2017 at 1:59 pm)Khemikal Wrote: -add that to the pile of "atheist tendencies"...... as related by you, right up there with how they always steal your cookies.

I;ve gotta ask, if you find that people are often implying or suggesting that you're crazy....at what point do you wonder whether or not it might be you, rather than them?  How does the joke go?  First time a guy calls you a horse you hit him in the mouth.  Third time, you look into purchasing a saddle?

I don't pay much attention, when they attack straw men, and try to speak for me or make false assumptions about motives

-and we can add that to the pile of things you don't pay attention to, again, as relayed by you.

(August 4, 2017 at 1:38 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Are quakers gods?  No, they are not.  So, it was the ideas of men that changed our ideas of prison.   OFC, the quakers aren't around any more, and we continue to refine our model.  Penitentiaries may soon become relics, as the quakers became relics...on account of being well meaning but mistaken adventures in correction. Kind of like the quakers, when you think about it.

What was the point of that?

There are still Quakers. My brother in law is one. The US would be a better place if there were more, I think.

Now you're just bickering for the sake of bickering.  So....again, what was the point of original statement?  That some people who happen to be some brand of christian sometimes have better ideas than other people who happen to be christians (or any other religion, or even irreligious)?  OFC they do. People have ideas all the time, some of them are bound to be better than the others.

-and?

(August 4, 2017 at 8:13 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Assuming that one is not biased to automatically rule out supernatural causes, is there anything wrong with tentatively accepting them until a reasonable natural cause is posited? Or is something only considered explained if attributed to some visible efficient cause?

Something can be explained if attributed to a known cause. Since there are no verifiable, known, supernatural causes....

(August 4, 2017 at 11:30 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 4, 2017 at 11:17 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: my point is simply that I find "I don't know" to be a perfectly acceptable provisional answer, and I don't understand why your particular god should be the default answer in the face of ignorance.

See above. It is not a option to say "I don't know" when, for example, faced with certain end of life decisions, such as pulling the plug on a critically injured loved one.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what you and I are discussing. You asked me how I would appreciate unexplained phenomena. Your use of the phrase "visible efficient cause" tells me you were asking the question in the material sense ... but now you're trying to answer my point by appealing to something else which is immaterial in both senses of the word. (Even if it were germane to our discussion, I would still dismiss your point because it is an appeal to consequences).

(August 4, 2017 at 8:13 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Assuming that one is not biased to automatically rule out supernatural causes, is there anything wrong with tentatively accepting them until a reasonable natural cause is posited? Or is something only considered explained if attributed to some visible efficient cause?

This.

---

(August 4, 2017 at 2:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 4, 2017 at 1:38 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Are quakers gods?  No, they are not.  So, it was the ideas of men that changed our ideas of prison.   OFC, the quakers aren't around any more, and we continue to refine our model.  Penitentiaries may soon become relics, as the quakers became relics...on account of being well meaning but mistaken adventures in correction.  Kind of like the quakers, when you think about it.

What was the point of that?

There are still Quakers. My brother in law is one. The US would be a better place if there were more, I think.

There would certainly be more cereals.

(August 4, 2017 at 1:27 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(August 4, 2017 at 12:39 pm)Whateverist Wrote: When societies spiral into war and atrocities are committed I don't imagine it is on account of which philosophical world view the main players hold.  I mean that in the sense that such considerations rarely factor in for the worst of the worse.  What they do then doesn't follow from their failed philosophical views but from their particular psychological twistedness and character failings.  You can say, "well if they'd just embrace xtianity this would never happen" but you know, it wouldn't happen either if I was simply appointed absolute ruler of the earth.

It doesn't seem to have anything to do with a god anyway, and obviously many people who "accept christianity" still blissfully murder others.  A disproportionately large number of murderers just so happen to be christians, lol.

I suspect the number of convicted murderers who are xtian probably approaches 100% if/when they come up for parole.