tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post4415969779722885476..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Sinking the Raft I’m Standing OnMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-83569450341048299982008-06-16T09:43:00.000-07:002008-06-16T09:43:00.000-07:00One thing I see Everett having left out of the equ...One thing I see Everett having left out of the equation is to consider the entire domain of possible evidence. The equation calls for "evidence for God" and "evidence against God" and then, essentially, balance the two for the best answer. It doesn't take in account "how much evidence are we lacking?" A non-response in statistics is important. If all you consider is that your sample was those who responded, then you get a bias. The goal in these kinds of inferences-from-evidence is to make sure we're not biasing our results. Everett does not provide that by what you have stated here. <BR/><BR/>To make it in another logical fashion, the domain is not partitioned by these two sets of evidence, i.e., there's more out there not considered in this equation that may or may not apply. As you conclude, what if, in the end, the evidence supports God? <BR/><BR/>Let's say our current evidence against God outweights the evidence for God, but the evidence for God is only 5% of the total, while the evidence against is 95%. If we theoretically had 100% of the evidence for and against it shows we ought to be for God, then our current evaluation by Everett's model is just wrong. How might we determine our level of evidence? How might we consider what a "true model" might be? i.e., the ideal model with 100% evidence. That is, essentially, what would make Everett's equation hold (fails if we're any less)?<BR/><BR/>Therefore, I'm not suggesting we shouldn't appeal to the evidence, I just think it's too simplistic to use like a standard because it does not provide any meaningful insight into considering the sample itself. Without that kind of meta-analysis we will have biases and not have considered them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84446686605205544282008-05-22T09:17:00.000-07:002008-05-22T09:17:00.000-07:00"The question is, how hard have we tried to unders...<B><BR/>"The question is, how hard have we tried to understand the opposite viewpoint? How much serious consideration have we given to the counter-evidence?"<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Quite a few of us atheists, myself included, were once theists.<BR/><BR/>For myself, I know I tried very hard, once I began to question my religious upbringing, to find a rational basis for what I had previously believed on authority.<BR/><BR/>But I never could. Much as I tried.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-76373570076500316912008-05-19T07:48:00.000-07:002008-05-19T07:48:00.000-07:00"Atheists in particular loudly and proudly proclai..."Atheists in particular loudly and proudly proclaim that they are the reasonable ones, they follow the evidence, they live by rationality, not by superstition and myth. But the real acid test here is whether we’re willing to ride the boat of reason to whatever shores it takes us to."<BR/><BR/>It's unquestionably true that atheists make this mistake a lot. (Not me, of course.) If we have an edge, though, it's in that we're likelier to recognize the problem and try to avoid it.<BR/><BR/>"The question is, how hard have we tried to understand the opposite viewpoint? How much serious consideration have we given to the counter-evidence?"<BR/><BR/>Good question. An excellent exercise is to write out a short essay arguing for the opposing point of view, really, sincerely trying to make the case. It's illuminating, to say the least.mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11598639295632896831noreply@blogger.com