Posted by Jim Henderson on: 03.28.2006 /
” Philosopher Karl Popper wrote that after you set up a hypothesis, you should test it to destruction. You should look for all the evidence that goes against your view. But that doesn’t happen in the City or on Wall Street. If someone takes a view on a stock or a market, he wants to hear all the evidence that supports that view. Most people are not inclined to sit down with people who disagree with them.”
From an article in Fast Company on James Montiers a so called financial heretic
Leave a Reply
Comment by: TXatheist
1 03/28/06 2:29 PM | Comment Link |Hence my reason for recommending 20 questions:an introduction into philosophy. Read both sides of many controversial issues. If I had a dollar for every political conservative I asked about Bush I’d be very rich:) But the information I get from them is the real gem.
Comment by: skikid
2 03/28/06 3:21 PM | Comment Link |I can understand why people don’t ‘test to destruction’, it seems to often lead me to an uncomfortable place of uncertainty. This blog, among other things, has posed a lot of questions that I don’t have the answer to. I have been yanked out the apathetic there-are-answers-to-whatever-question-I-have-so don’t-worry-about-it mentality. For me that is a really safe and comfortable place to be, but it’s not where I want to be, I don’t learn or grow or explore there. So, yeah, I am a little uncomfortable, a lot unsure about some things, but that’s a good thing. I made myself a promise a long time ago, when I first started to explore the idea of theism, that I would always question and explore and this has reminded me of that.
Comment by: Ir
3 03/28/06 4:14 PM | Comment Link |I agree with skikid.
I would also urge people to get the opposing view first-hand rather than relying on second-hand accounts of it from those who share their viewpoint. In my experience with comparing first-hand and second-hand accounts, the second-hand accounts often have major flaws.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
4 03/29/06 5:23 AM | Comment Link |Ir writes
[In my experience with comparing first-hand and second-hand accounts, the second-hand accounts often have major flaws.] Worse than major flaws in my experience. Often the information is diametrically opposed to what you’d really find.
Consider the secondhand statement (which I’ve heard) that all atheists are full of themselves and closed-minded. Or that all Xians are… ready for this… full of themselves and closed-minded. A little time on this board will show you that neither of those are true!
And I’m getting kind of closed-minded about that!
;-)
Comment by: Ron
5 03/29/06 7:09 AM | Comment Link |“A Commitment To Curiosity” is a great topic for me to bring up the latest question that I have been chewing on.
Why do we have the assumption that the sceptical approach is the “right” approach? Has anybody ever thougt about that? Why is the pattern of scepticism, the right template for belief? Let me explain.
Issac Newton began with belief not scepticism. He did not set out to disprove gravity. He tested what he already believed. Throughout all of science, researchers believe something and then test it. They don’t, not believe something and then test it. Moreover, if they have questions that arise that they can’t answer, then they certainly don’t assume the sceptical, they assume the original belief until proven otherwise.
With atheism, why is the opposite true?
Comment by: TXatheist
6 03/29/06 7:16 AM | Comment Link |Ron,
It depends on the claim. The level of skepticism goes up and down drastically based on the onset. If someone says they can jump off a cliff and fly….high skepticism. If some guy 6′6″ says he can dunk a basketball, minimal skepticism. We dream and invision ideas just like anyone else but skepticism steps into play once someone makes a claim on something:)
Comment by: Ron
7 03/29/06 7:37 AM | Comment Link |Thanks, TX!
Comment by: Jayson B.
8 03/29/06 7:48 AM | Comment Link |Ron, please do not confuse skepticism with science. While the two are related in the sense of finding the truth, they aren’t synonyms.
Scientists do not start out with beliefs. They almost always start out with observations. Those observations lead to a hypothesis being made. Now, a hypothesis is NOT a belief, a hypothesis is simply making a statement about what you think *might* be happening.
then, you go out and test it! And you test it a lot. And then you have other scientists test it. And as you find more data, you decide if it supports your hypothesis or not. If it does, you accept and it becomes a “theory.” If it doesn’t, you trash it and try finding another one to explain the phenomena you’re observing.
The skeptical angle of science is the test phase. The standards of attemping to rule out factors that might mire your findings. The constant double checking, the peer review system. All of these are designed with skepticism in mind, to burn away the b.s. and be left with the truth.
Newton didn’t start with a belief, he started with an observation. And he tested it. Alot. That proves his skepticism. And he theory to this day is STILL being tested, being refined, and that is the beautiful thing about science: it doesn’t make a claim and just give up on it after it found some evidence. It constantly tests.
It will forever be skeptical, even of itself, because science above all is the quest for knowledge and truth. And considering that the past two hundred years have seen the greatest advances in quality of life and health in the history of mankind, I’d say science is doing a pretty damn good job.
Comment by: Ir
9 03/29/06 8:22 AM | Comment Link |Ron, I don’t think the opposite is true with atheists.
Newton’s hypothesis about gravity was something he came up with to explain what he observed. Then he tested his hypothesis.
Atheists and Christians alike come up with a “working hypothesis” to explain what they observe, but it’s a different hypothesis. “Hypothesis” is perhaps a less controversial word to use than ‘belief’ - belief confuses the issue because it implies something Christians have and atheists don’t. However both have a ‘working hypothesis’ that explains what they see around them. I suggest that whether it’s stated as a negative or positive is not really of significance to the methodology, nor is it what the blog entry is about.
This blog entry says, in effect “Whatever your working hypothesis is, you should investigate the reasoning of those who reject it as well as those who accept it, otherwise you will not have tested your hypothesis very effectively”.
In my opinion, a level of skepticism which promotes thorough investigation of any claim or hypothesis is a good, wise and healthy thing. When ’skepticism’ refers to a knee-jerk rejection of anything one doesn’t agree with, then I don’t think that’s good, wise or healthy.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
10 03/29/06 8:50 AM | Comment Link |Ron, to answer your question directly: Because God created our minds to be inquisitive, to search out truth, to think His thoughts after Him.
I think that this God-given gift of mental investigative powers is like any other God-given gift. It may be used in a manner consistent with His desires and designs, or it may be used in a manner inconsistent with them. That, of course, is God’s gift of free will interacting on His gift of intellectual discovery.
But skepticism, in and of itself, is not, imho, a bad thing. It’s what you do with it.
My two bits. YMMV.
Tom
Comment by: Jayson B.
11 03/29/06 9:01 AM | Comment Link |tom,
what would be a bad use of skepticism? And please, do not confuse skepticism with cynicism.
Comment by: TXatheist
12 03/29/06 10:36 AM | Comment Link |Ron,
Michael Shermer has a book “Why people believe wierd things” or a much shorter read is the chapter in Carl Sagan’s book a Demon haunted world where he talks about the dragon in his garage. It is in line with the critical thinking reasoning where some people can be critical about most things but then when it comes to their cherished belief in the garage dragon their skepticism goes out the window.
Comment by: TXatheist
13 03/29/06 11:46 AM | Comment Link |Jayson,
When it comes to admitting error in their logic some people are in complete denial.
Comment by: Siamang
14 03/29/06 11:58 AM | Comment Link |Ron wrote:
That’s not entirely accurate. Newton didn’t prove gravity, or set out to disprove gravity. Newton’s work on his theory of universal gravitation was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
What Newton did was to apply Kepler’s laws of motion to earthbound objects to see if it was indeed the same force. He became convinced that it indeed was the same force, which he named gravitas.
He then set out to disprove his hypothesis by testing his new calculations on other celestial objects, planets and the motion of comets. Any planet which wasn’t where his math predicted it to be would immediately falsify his hypothesis. Any one mistake would disprove it forever.
He was unable to disprove his hypothesis, nor was anyone in the scientific community.
You see, you cannot PROVE the theory of universal gravitation, as tomorrow a planet may suddenly jump out of orbit. You never know. It can never be “proven.”
But you CAN demonstrate the usefulness over and over again until you’d have to be crazy not to accept the utility of Newton’s calculations.
From wikipedia:
“A theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.”
That definition speaks to your question, Ron, of skepticism. The mechanism by which we test theories is to test them to their breaking point. If they break, they fail as a theory. If we just try to “confirm” them, then we aren’t really testing them, are we? We’re just making a little test that’s safe and warm and snuggly and doesn’t threaten to tell us that we’re merely fooling ourselves.
If the theory continues to provide predictive power, and fails to break every time we try to disprove it, it continues to have value as a theory.
Does that help?
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
15 03/29/06 12:03 PM | Comment Link |Great question, Jayson. (Thanks for the heads up, TX) It is tempting to just say, ala pornography, I can’t define it but I know it when I see it. But ultimately that is unsatisfactory for everyone, including me.
I’m kind of thinking out loud here. I’d start with the assupmtion above, that our minds were created by God who intended us to use them. I think He intended for us to use them, pre-eminently, to find Him, and secondarily to enjoy Him through the appreciation of His creation. (I think of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to Glorify God and enjoy Him forever.)
That suggests that a bad use of skepticism would be to begin with the assumption that God is not there.
I am reading a wonderful little book by Peter Kreeft right now, called Between Heaven & Hell. It is a “trialog” between CS Lewis, JF Kennedy, and Aldous Huxley. They all died within a few hours of each other on the same day, and the meet in heaven’s anteroom and a conversation ensues.
Kreeft has Kennedy ask if Lewis’ faith is passive and uncritical. Kreeft places the following into CS Lewis’s mouth: “No. I believe for good reason, and then I explore my faith with good reason.” And this kind of illustrates the notion of skepticism in the service of belief, rather than skepticism in judgement of belief.
Later Kreeft has Lewis talking about the relationship between authority and reason and faith. He says that “authority” is not belief due to the power of God (in this case) but rather, we bow to authority because it is the proper response to an author. (Ex. We bow to the authority of the state because the state is the author of the laws in question.) And then this (imaginary) exchange follows:
Kennedy: In other words, you give up your mind to the church.
Lewis: No, for two reasons. Not my mind first of all but my will, and not to the church first of all but to God. But the God to whom I say “Thy will be done” replies, “It is my will that you believe what I have revealed to you.”
And he goes on to say that that includes the church and scriptures, but also nature and science.
So, from this perspective, the bad use of skepticism is skepticism that is exercised in judgement of belief under the willful choice of a rebellious creature.
Of course, throw out the initial starting point and the whole thing comes down like a house of cards. It always comes down to our presuppositions.
Tom
Comment by: Siamang
16 03/29/06 12:13 PM | Comment Link |Tom wrote:
Well, of course, you’ve got a useful mind, why not start with both presuppositions and see where they lead?
Presuppose that God exists AND presuppose the He doesn’t, or not the way we understand Him in the first presupposition.
Be absolutely rigorous with both cases, do not allow God to enter in any thinking of your second case. And evaluate seperately, which objective observations of the world wind up supporting which presupposition.
Having been a Christian as well as various other forms of theist, I have weighed many sets of pre-suppositions. You know which one I’m currently at!
Comment by: Ron
17 03/29/06 1:03 PM | Comment Link |Thanks to all who responded to my questions. I really enjoyed reading everyone’s thoughts. Correct me if I’m wrong but based on my understanding of the responses, then doesn’t that mean that the burden of proof lays on the shoulders of those who don’t believe God exists?
Comment by: TXatheist
18 03/29/06 1:15 PM | Comment Link |The one making the claim has the burden. Are you saying that god exists? :)
Comment by: Jayson B.
19 03/29/06 1:16 PM | Comment Link |And in order to use that assumption, you have to assume that god *does* exists.
this is where people constantly are misinformed about atheism.
they assume they we deny the existance of god, and that we assume that god does not exist as a starting point. It is the exact opposite.
You make the claim that god exists, and I ask for proof of that claim. Since you can provide none, I choose not to believe that claim. I do not have to work backwards on this one.
And besides, nearly every atheist you’ll find will tell you that they most definately started with the assumption of god existing, and moved the other way. many of us started off as christians after all.
Comment by: Ir
20 03/29/06 1:42 PM | Comment Link |Ok, stand by to be corrected, Ron ;)
The burden of proof rests with whomever is trying to prove something. The burden of proof rests with a Christian who claims God exists and with an atheist who claims God does not exist.
Someone who makes no claims does not have the burden of proof; but if he/she goes on to claim that someone else is wrong then I would say he/she has just taken the burden of proof upon himself/herself to prove the other person is wrong.
Comment by: Siamang
21 03/29/06 2:03 PM | Comment Link |Ron said
No, that’s backwards.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. In science as in a court of law.
If someone made the claim “God exists,” the burden of proof would be on them.
If someone made the claim “God does not exist,” the burden of proof would be on them.
Myself, I don’t “believe in the existance of God” because I remain unconvinced by claimants of the first type. (Remember, I used to be one of those claimants.)
But I also don’t “believe God doesn’t exist” because similarly I have not heard sufficiently compelling proof of that idea either.
Comment by: Ron
22 03/29/06 2:20 PM | Comment Link |Very interesting!
Comment by: TXatheist
23 03/29/06 2:22 PM | Comment Link |Siamang,
How you you critique this phrase..please.
I don’t believe god exists because there isn’t evidence for any god.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
24 03/29/06 2:27 PM | Comment Link |Siamang, re: #16, that is essentially what I did. I undoubtedly did not make as exhaustive a search as some have. But it didn’t take me long to realize that there is a coherency in the world that I see if Christianity is true that is lacking if it isn’t. That was enough to tell me that I didn’t need to go down that road to the end. The county puts “Not a Through Street” signs at the beginning of the road, not at the end.
Jayson, re: #19, you wrote:
(emphasis mine)
It is my contention that the evidence is everywhere and abundant and one need only treat it with the same assumptions one automatically applies to other phenomena to understand it accordingly.
Regardless of the philosophical nuances of various ontological arguments, imo they are sufficient to one with an open mind. If you look at a computer or a wrist watch or an automobile engine or…pick your complex system, it would neveer occur to anyone to imagine it sprang into existence without a designer. Why then would a neutral, unbiased observer make any other assumption about a human being or a solar system or the earth or an atom?
No, indeed. You are quite accurate and quite honest. You chose. I chose differently. And that has made all the difference.
And Ron, re: #17, the others have responded logically. Allow me to respond theologically. The responsibility for providing “proof” that there is a God lies with….God. A Creator outside of His creation cannot be perceived unless He chooses to self-reveal. He has. The evidence is there and sufficient.
Tom
Comment by: Siamang
25 03/29/06 2:35 PM | Comment Link |Txatheist wrote
It depends on how the person means it, but to me it’s like this:
In this context “belief” in something is a positive act. The premise we’re considering is “god exists”. Not beliving “god exists” isn’t the same as believing “god doesn’t exist.”
For example, right now I may have a cavity in my teeth. I may not. I haven’t been to the dentist in two years. I don’t KNOW if I have a cavity or not, since my teeth feel fine.
Here is the statement I make:
I don’t believe I have any cavities.
This is a neutral proposition.
It is distinct from these two other propositions:
I believe I have a cavity.
I believe I have zero cavities.
Comment by: Ron
26 03/29/06 2:38 PM | Comment Link |Tom,
That is why I have resorted to only asking questions now to truly learn from others perspctives. :-) When I have tried to prove God, then I very well may be working against Him.
Comment by: TXatheist
27 03/29/06 2:41 PM | Comment Link |Ok,
I understand where your coming from on making or not making a declaration. So when I respond to someone who says there is evidence for god it’s their responsibity to show god exists and the evidence is clearly from god. Otherwise they are just making a statement of belief and incorrectly inserting the word evidence.
Comment by: Siamang
28 03/29/06 2:50 PM | Comment Link |Tom wrote:
Of course, you presuppose that the entire universe is designed, so I am out of things I can point to which are complex with which to refute your argument.
If I point to the magnificent complexity of the orbits of a solar system, you will still call it designed.
If I say that the complex interplay between chemistry and physics in the atom-smashing ability of the Sun is far more complex than a wristwatch, you still will call the Sun designed, even though it bears zero resemblence to any wristwatch I’ve ever seen.
If you start your argument from the supposition “everything we see comes from God” you cannot help but come to that as your conclusion as well.
To me, watches are nothing like life. Watches cannot reproduce. Watches cannot grow. Watches cannot evolve. Watches cannot adapt to a changing environment. Watches cannot pass down their survival advantages to their progeny. Watches cannot do anything that even the lowest form of life on earth can. Even a lowly virus can reproduce, evolve, mutate and adapt to its environment.
How can anyone look at a watch and imagine that it’s like life? It’s the furthest thing from life. It is utterly lifeless.
It’s the worst analogy I can think of. If a watch is the model of a designed object, then that’s proof that life isn’t designed.
Comment by: Siamang
29 03/29/06 2:52 PM | Comment Link |TXatheist wrote
Well, it’s up to you to judge the quality of their evidence and see if you find it sufficiently compelling to convince you of their assertion, isn’t it? :-)
Comment by: TXatheist
30 03/29/06 3:06 PM | Comment Link |Siamang,
Have you read the blind watchmaker? I’ve liked Dawkins but haven’t had a chance to get to his books yet. He’s in line though:)
As far as the previous comment. I guess I’ll side with every major public university science program on whether there is evidence for the supernatural.
Comment by: Siamang
31 03/29/06 3:17 PM | Comment Link |Yes, I have read that book. It’s not an argument against the existence of God as much as it’s an argument against design as a proof of God.
Fascinating study of evolution, though. Dawkins sure knows how to paint a mental picture. That book completely turned my ideas of evolution upside down. I always accepted the fact of evolution, but Dawkins explains the why and how so lucidly that now I look at evolution from a gene-centric approach rather than an organism-centric approach.
The survival of genes, rather than of species. Fascinating stuff.
Comment by: Jayson B.
32 03/29/06 4:11 PM | Comment Link |But Tom, you can’t just say something is sufficient and it amazingly simply becomes sufficient. You have to show *why* it’s sufficient.
And, unfortunately, when it comes to showing any sort of sufficiency, the ONLY answer I’ve ever seen from a IDer is “look around at the world, and it’s mind blowing, so I can’t believe that it wasn’t designed.” that’s not exactly an argument.
I don’t exactly appreciate the comment, but I would rather think with my mind that act with my heart. ID is an emotional response to a rational theory, nothing more.
I’m going to take a different route with this one than Siamang, although his response is valid and I agree. I’m going to make two points here.
First off, we know how a watch is made. We know a designer made it, because we’ve seen designers make them. We take actual proof (first hand experience) and apply it to the object at hand. We know watches exist because we made them.
So, let’s look at the natural world, and here’s the kicker………we have a pretty damn good idea of how that’s made too. We know how mountains are made, we can physically see how suns are made by peering into the universe. Insurmountable evidence shows us how life evolved.
So, we take our knowledge, and we apply it to the object involved. We know how it was made, and we don’t exactly find the fingers of god at hand.
Because through observation, through science, we have a pretty good idea of how those things are made.
This statement bothered me greatly. The fact that you can seperate logic from theology really says a lot doesn’t it? And it’s not the first time I’ve seen it, I see countless christians proclaim, “don’t use your mind, use your heart to decide if god exists.”
I’m sorry, I didn’t see the big billboard in the sky that says “god wuz here.” If god has revealed himself, he’s done a pretty poor job of it.
And besides, let’s assume that there was a designer, a being that did in fact create the universe through the science that we have discovered.
That STILL does not mean he’s a christian god, or any god that we know. It is still just as unfathomable that this all knowing, all seeing, omnipotent being worries about if I sit in a building for an hour on sunday and whether or not I waited for a ceremony to have sex with a girl, nor is it fathomable that this same being decided to slaughter countless people because he felt like it.
It’s a giant, giant leap to make that assumption, and it’s something that I haven’t seen addressed by ANYBODY.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
33 03/29/06 4:40 PM | Comment Link |Jayson, you wrote,
First off, we know how a watch is made. We know a designer made it, because we’ve seen designers make them. We take actual proof (first hand experience) and apply it to the object at hand. We know watches exist because we made them.
So, let’s look at the natural world, and here’s the kicker………we have a pretty damn good idea of how that’s made too. We know how mountains are made, we can physically see how suns are made by peering into the universe. Insurmountable evidence shows us how life evolved.
You have erred in your thinking. Here’s how. You see a watch designer design, then you see a series of mechanisms go to work, then you see a watch. But when you talk about mountains and suns and universes and life, you are starting with the mechanism and proceeding to the “watch”. You have left the first step blank either because you refuse to fill in the blank, or because you can’t imagine a designer.
My point is that if you see something small and complex, you look back behind the mechanism to see the designer. It is that assumption that you are, imo, unreasonably excluding from the production of life, universes, etc.
BTW, I assumed that we are all intelligent enough to understand common usage of language. If I erred in my assumption let me make my comment above more explicit for you: “the others have responded logically using the tools of mere secular logic. Allow me to respond in a manner that applies the same rules of logic but that fills the logical structure with content that is theologically consistent with what I have come to understand as an intellectual position that you can accept.
I apologize for over estimating your intelligence, Jayson.
Tom
Comment by: TXatheist
34 03/29/06 4:44 PM | Comment Link |Tom,
That’s not nice.
Jayson,
You’re intelligence is amazing to me. I have appreciated you and Siamang for your scientific points on this blog.
Comment by: TXatheist
35 03/29/06 4:45 PM | Comment Link |It’s nature by the way, things happen and all we can do is explain them. You credit god and that’s your belief but there is no step in science where someone states “ok, here is where god did it”. That’s not science that’s religious belief.
Comment by: TXatheist
36 03/29/06 4:48 PM | Comment Link |Tom
Jayson point is you can say “here is Dave, he works at Timex and designed this watch and put it together”. If you do that for the mountain thing without meet actually meeting someone then you have got to understand why it’s not science but your religious belief that has no evidence. Why can’t you get on board with that?
Comment by: Jayson B.
37 03/29/06 5:06 PM | Comment Link |Tom,
I’ll write more later, but I just wanted to say that while your comment was disapointing, I’m not going to knock you for it. I myself have gotten a little on the berating side of the debate here, so I can’t fault you, even though personally I’ve made certain to keep my language outside the realm of making personal insults.
But that’s ok, i have more than enough to say about your argument that you try to make.
Comment by: Siamang
38 03/29/06 5:06 PM | Comment Link |Tom wrote
You have done once again what I admonished you against before. You have presupposed a designer for the entire universe, and you have therefore left Jayson with nothing against which he can compare a watch to show “non-design.”
If you say that mountains show design and watches show design and suns show design, then there’s nothing we can talk about, can we?
Your presupposition precludes any discussion. Therefore it is a meritless analogy, since you are comparing things within a set that includes everything in the universe and the universe itself. Your proposition is assumed explicitly in your premise.
Can you draw an analogy that is not circular, so that we may understand you better?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
39 03/29/06 9:50 PM | Comment Link |How about turning this into a discussion group
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
40 03/29/06 10:47 PM | Comment Link |Per Jim’s request, I’ll put my response on the Discussion page.
Tom
Comment by: Ir
41 03/30/06 4:04 AM | Comment Link |Here’s the link to the thread Tom opened:
Continuing the Curiosity Discussion
(Tom, thanks for beginning that thread with an apology to Jayson for a comment you made here)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
42 03/30/06 10:22 AM | Comment Link |thanks
Comment by: John Anderson
43 08/1/07 1:29 AM | Comment Link |Humans are too amazing to not be designed by somone, so god must exist.
But god is even more amzing than us, so he could not have existed without a designer, so god must have been made by somone, etc etc etc
So the odvious thing is we are far more likely to exist by chance then god, so thats the only logical option.