The Case for Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

Sorry I didn’t intend to arrogantly tell you what you believe. Apologies for any misunderstanding on that account.

Though it's not directed at me, personally, I appreciate the courtesy.

You’re arguing you ‘don't have to assume anything in order to come to conclusions about the world. You just have to critically examine all the claims that come in…’

From a Bayesian perspective there’s always a prior belief – no one comes to the data without prior knowledge. These prior beliefs are then tested and updated in the light of the data we observe.

Yes, we use the same method, but without conflating belief and knowledge.

But I agree a lot of people take the position you’ve suggested as they don’t like to assume anything. To convey this position in a Bayesian analysis is to set a flat prior – which assumes you have no prior knowledge and therefore will let the data have 100% of weight in the analysis so that your conclusions are only impacted by the evidence.

That's not correct at all. Our prior knowledge isn't an assumption. We'd have to go back to infancy to be in a state where we have no prior knowledge. Prior knowledge is PART of the data.

It’s easy to show empirically that if you use a flat prior you get findings equivalent to an analysis which claims not to make any prior assumptions (e.g. frequentist analysis).

I suppose, but since you're completely off the reservation in terms of how most of us actually reason, it's not really relevant. Is it so much harder to ask us intelligently how we reason than take your best guess and see if it sticks?

What is a flat prior (all weight in the analysis of evidence given to the data and no or minimal prior assumptions) in the context of our discussion?

Beats me, you've built your edifice on the air of your own speculation that we don't consider prior knowledge. Since we do, everything after that is kind of a waste.

If you want to make no prior assumptions then mathematically you express this by parametising metaphysical naturalism and theism as equally probably explanations of the world. Whether you hold that assumption to be true or not, if you want your interpretation of the evidence to be determined by the data mathematically you have to make that assumption.

However, if I’m fairly stating your position that the burden of proof is on theism then by definition you don’t have a flat prior (I think you are saying they’re not equally probably explanations of the world).

That is correct, although you seem to have driven around Asia to get there.

If I’m being true to your position, this is in Bayesian terms technically called an informed prior – which means you have a view about what explanation is more likely. It would be for you to tell me how much more likely you think metaphysical naturalism is compared with theism.

As a rule, we are not metaphysical naturalists.

But obviously the more likely you think it is- the greater weight is given to this prior belief and less weight to the data when evaluating the evidence.

Prior knowledge, not prior belief.

All I’m saying is try submitting a paper to a peer reviewed journal of a Bayesian analysis which included an informed prior but at the same time stated your interpretation had no prior assumptions and was 100% driven by the data – it wouldn’t get past the peer reviewers.

Yet, you suppose that's how we think, anyway.

What I’m saying is there are at least two opposing informed priors about which explanation is a better understanding of the world.

One informed prior is based on knowledge. That's what makes it informed. The other is based on belief. That makes it less informed.

This is quite a common situation – so how do Bayesian analyses take this into account when examining the data? Generally, they analyse the data comparing conclusions using different priors. At a minimum they look at the impact of using each of the opposing priors as well as flat priors. Which is to say the burden of proof argument for me is simplistic and in many senses misleading way of interpreting the evidence.

Well, it's the most inconvenient for you, isn't it? You don't have to shoulder the burden of proof. You could be an agnostic theist and admit you don't know but you believe anyway. We're not coming to your house and demanding you prove Christitanity correct, else we're justified in believing the other thing (as if there were only one other thing). Because that would be an argument from ignorance, for starters.

If we can’t really agree about what prior beliefs we’re factoring in and what weight they have in our interpretation of the analysis – then in my view there’s not much common ground to discuss the issues. We end up talking past each other.

Maybe we'd talk past each other a little less if you spent less time guessing what we thing and more time asking.

I provided very brief responses as I’m sure you’re aware to discuss even one of these issues in any detail takes time. If we can’t really agree on a starting point why would we take the time to argue these points in detail?

A better question is why would we take the time if that's your idea of brevity?

Maybe you missed my previous comment, I was saying Paul was referring to 500 witnesses – I wasn’t including Paul in that list.

No one said you did.

If you claimed 500 witnesses had seen an event and that most of them were still alive and that I could contact them – I think that’s a strong claim.

Then you're very gullible. I can easily make that claim about Elvis, and back it up with plenty of witnesses.

If you don’t think that’s strong evidence – that’s entirely your choice its up to us as individuals to assess the evidence and come to our own conclusions.

Why would I believe that claim written down thousands of years ago when I wouldn't believe the same claim today unless it was verified? And I find it hard to believe you'd take someone's word for a fantastic event on so little evidence today, too.

Paul makes a claim about Jesus resurrection based on a large number of eye witnesses – most of whom were still alive who people could check with.

How do you know most of them were still alive? Most people didn't make it much past 40 in that time and place. Check with how, Paul didn't give their names? Check with where, Paul didn't give their current whereabouts? Check with why, when average people back then were so credulous they bought into pretty much any miracle story they heard?

Why would he make such a claim if he was lying?

It's not lying if you think it's true. I saw this all the time in the UPC: if they heard it from another Pentecostal, it was the Gospel truth: resurrections in Africa, legs growing back in South America, it's a miracle Lord, and thousands of people saw it! If I repeat the story, believing it to be true, does that make me a liar?

It would be very easy to refute – particularly as many who made claims for Jesus resurrection were killed - yet I don’t see any evidence that his claim was refuted.

Can you give an example of any miracle by anyone being refuted before the 15th century, for any religion? People didn't do much refuting back then.

Do you consider all other eyewitness testimony of historical events beyond a 100 or so years ago invalid?

It's suspect, which is why real historians weigh the probability of an account being accurate on corroborating contemporary sources. For example, someone reporting the same thing from a different point of view, like the Romans complaining about all the dead people walking around in Jerusalem after the resurrection.