[FoRK] Terms - Practicing Science: Secular vs. Religious Ideology
<jbone at place.org> on
Fri Jan 11 18:02:09 PST 2008
On Jan 11, 2008, at 3:40 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> There's a difference in insisting that there's something there
> without any evidence, and insisting that something is not there for
> lack of it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I
> never said it was. My issue is with the insistence that something
> IS, when there is no evidence. I am not asserting with certainty
> that something IS NOT just because I see no evidence. My mind is
> open to being changed --- by EVIDENCE, not by psychological
> manipulation, social pressure, "evangelism," etc.
> OTOH, it's easy and valid to reason probabilistically about these
> things. Your "indictment" of atheists is equally applicable to
> everyone that does not believe that an ice cream sundae is about to
> magically appear before them right now.... (In fact, arguably,
> such a belief might be LESS probabilistically preposterous than a
> belief in any given deity.)
Two bits, for clarity.
(1) In fact my contempt for those that choose to believe in any god
is independent of the truth or falsehood of their belief. The
REALITY of the situation is that there is no objective evidence of
any god. If some god chose to appear tomorrow, and "vindicated" some
group of believers, my contempt for those believers would in no way
lessen; even if they were proven *right* --- my contempt is for the
epistemological method by which they came by their priors, regardless
of the denouement. Any random belief may be right or wrong; and
luck is nothing to be admired.
(2) In fact something resembling an ice cream sundae --- a half-and-
half avocado and chipotle-chocolate gelato appeared on my desk
shortly after I penned the message this afternoon. No magic
involved; I went downstairs to the Whole Foods and purchased it.
Cash money, baby!
More information about the FoRK