Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic

Posted on by

This video from David Wood seems to be pertinent to almost every discussion that takes place here. Perhaps it should be required viewing to any who would participate in this forum.

What do you think?

check it out.

https://youtu.be/YrGVeB_SPJg

 

peace

791 thoughts on “Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic”

  1. walto: He has said over and over that he could be convinced.

    He just can’t conceive of any possible evidence that would convince him.

    Just as I said,
    No misrepresentation at all, blatant or otherwise

    peace

  2. colewd: KN did not understand my argument but almost certainly my fault

    You made a silly argument from analogy then switched to a rather standard fine tuning argument.

    Problem is fine tuning, if it’s true, can’t be evidence of design, because if all the laws of nature are so restrictive that if they were any different nothing else would exist (matter, planets, life…) then a hypothetical creator couldn’t have designed a matter or life permitting universe any other way. He would have no say as to how the laws work, so those laws must exist independent of the creator. The fine tuning argument renders god a mere handyman with a blueprint to build universes.

  3. fifthmonarchyman: He just can’t conceive of any possible evidence that would convince him.

    He has not said that, Fifth, and you know it. He’s explicitly said that he can conceive of a lot of evidence that would convince him. He has said that he can’t be CERTAIN of any particular one that it would do the trick.

    This kind of crap is beneath you, Fifth. You get stuff wrong a lot, and you’re repetitive and robotic sometimes, but you don’t usually act like an asshole.

  5. colewd: What is the likelihood that this atom that operates so precisely to enable life can be the result of an unplanned event?

    Since there’s no way to know the priors, there’s no way to determine the likelihood. It’s a completely meaningless question.

  6. walto: He’s explicitly said that he can conceive of a lot of evidence that would convince him.

    that is simply incorrect

    He has said that he knows of some things that convinced other folks (frozen water falls etc) and this sort of thing might convince him.

    That is a very far cry from saying that he can conceive of a lot of evidence that would convince him

    walto: He has said that he can’t be CERTAIN of any particular one that it would do the trick.

    This is not about certainty and I never mentioned certainty it’s about might convince verses would convince that is all.

    walto: This kind of crap is beneath you, Fifth.

    I don’t mean to be rude but

    Let me tell you why might verses would is important.

    I can say that the problem of evil “might” convince me that God does not exist but that is nothing but a dodge.

    Who knows monkeys “might” fly out of my butt as well

    These are simply not live options

    I am pretty sure the problem of evil is not going to convince me that God does not exist and frozen water falls (absent direct divine intervention) is not to convince him that God does exist.

    peace

  7. walto,

    Suppose there were 200 or 12000 types of atoms. Couldn’t one make the same argument?

    Or suppose those four types made up 60% of us. Wouldn’t you make it again? The point is that nothing seems (to me at any rate) to follow from any of it. It’s just a story that appeals to you.

    I think you raise an interesting point. If you could create a conscious human with 1200 atoms I would still believe the basic component was designed.

    As someone who has been involved in the design of complex electronics, the fewer the components required for the required function more elegant the design.

    As you can see I am very impressed with the Atom 🙂

  8. OK, well then let’s just ask Woodbine, shall we?

    Woodbine, do you believe that there is any evidence that would convince you of the existence of God–even if you can’t be sure what it might be?

    Thanks.

  9. Kantian Naturalist,

    Since there’s no way to know the priors, there’s no way to determine the likelihood. It’s a completely meaningless question.

    In a strict empirical sense I agree. It is not an unreasonable question for our intuition.
    All these strict rules of logic are not always helping us understand nature.
    -God of the gaps
    -Begging the question
    -Moving the goal posts
    -Unknown priors

  10. colewd:
    Kantian Naturalist,

    In a strict empirical sense I agree.It is not an unreasonable question for our intuition.
    All these strict rules of logic are not always helping us understand nature.
    -God of the gaps
    -Begging the question
    -Moving the goal posts
    -Unknown priors

    Good news is once you accommodate “God of the gaps” you have question begging dealt with automatically. LMFAO. Seriously. There’s no need to mess with logic, you already have all that crap in theology.

  15. Mung: A total absence of any atheism.

    Please, take that up with FMM, who believes there’s no such thing as atheism.

  17. Patrick: If your gods have no measurable entailments, I suppose a solid logical argument might be of interest but I don’t know why anyone would bother worshipping a god that doesn’t interact with reality.

    No wonder you think the concept of God is incoherent.

  20. Mung: But in this thread we’re talking about the burden of *poof*.

    🙂

    Nice.

    The reason why I am committed to agnosticism — as an intellectual stance — is that I see no way that we could have sufficiently good reasons (based on logic and on science) for rating any hypothesis for the origins of the universe as more probable than any other.

    Of course one cannot live by intellectual considerations alone, and when I express my affective attitudes of reverence and amazement, I am perfectly willing to call myself a pantheist.

  21. walto: Woodbine, do you believe that there is any evidence that would convince you of the existence of God–even if you can’t be sure what it might be?

    Yes.

    You’d think this was a trivial point but in FMM’s eyes this constitutes ‘a dodge’.

    According to FMM in order to qualify as a ‘skeptic’ one must supply in advance the conditions that would cause a belief in X. Only somebody with pre-cognitive abilities could reliably do this.

    I guess that rules me out then (shrug).

  23. colewd: As someone who has been involved in the design of complex electronics, the fewer the components required for the required function more elegant the design.

    As you can see I am very impressed with the Atom

    And how many components are required for the atom?

    You probably don’t know this, being involved as an engineer rather then a physicist, but atoms are themselves made of things….

    For all you know there are infinite nested components. If that was shown to be true would the atom then become evidence for an undesigned universe? Somehow I doubt it.

  24. Kantian Naturalist: I am perfectly willing to call myself a pantheist.

    We have a lot in common. That is where i suppose I’d be if it weren’t for that pesky incarnation

    peace

  25. Woodbine: According to FMM in order to qualify as a ‘skeptic’ one must supply in advance the conditions that would cause a belief in X. Only somebody with pre-cognitive abilities could reliably do this.</blockquote

    I'm not asking for reliability. I'm asking for open mindedness

    Walto and Newton are able to list in advance evidence that they believe would convince them of God's existence. Why is this beyond your capacity?

    walto: Woodbine, do you believe that there is any evidence that would convince you of the existence of God–even if you can’t be sure what it might be?

    This is the equivalent of asking if you consider yourself to be open minded. And as such is not at all relevant to what I’m asking.

    I think even Patrick could answer yes to that one.

    peace

  26. Erik:

    That doesn’t change the fact that a simple lack of belief is not the same as an existence claim.

    Lack of belief in what?

    In whatever claims lack sufficient warrant for belief.

    If you know, then it’s a lack of belief in such-and-such and it seems to be your job to show how you distinguish your lack of belief in such-and-such from your lack of belief in the existence of such-and-such.

    You’ve got it backwards. It’s the people making god claims who have the burden of proof. There are an infinite number of things in which I lack belief. Unless and until you provide a clear definition of what you are claiming exists and measurable entailments of that existence, your god claims are among them.

  27. fifthmonarchyman:

    Unicorns are straightforward ———– Faeries are more difficult———–
    Gods are just further on the continuum of poor and contradictory definitions.

    So you are a skeptic when it comes to unicorns and almost a skeptic when it comes to Faeries and not a skeptic at all when it comes to God

    Got it

    Doesn’t your holy book say something about bearing false witness? A Real Christian ™ might refrain from such behavior.

  28. colewd:
    . . .
    What is the likelihood that this atom that operates so precisely to enable life can be the result of an unplanned event?The very nature of atoms shows evidence of a designed or a created component.

    . . . .

    If life weren’t possible, you wouldn’t be here to make up stories about how miraculous it is. Douglas Adams addressed your fallacy in the Parable of the Puddle.

  29. Woodbine: According to FMM in order to qualify as a ‘skeptic’ one must supply in advance the conditions that would cause a belief in X. Only somebody with pre-cognitive abilities could reliably do this.

    Apparently, for FMM, there’s all the difference in the world between

    “It’s possible that there exists some evidence E that would cause me to believe p, although I have no idea what E would be”

    and

    “I know that I would believe p if given evidence E, and I know exactly what E would have to be in order to persuade me that p”

    I can see the point of making a distinction here, but I don’t understand why FMM insists that only the latter is the position of the Real Skeptic.

  30. fifthmonarchyman: I’m not asking for reliability. I’m asking for open mindedness

    No you’re not – you’re reducing the psychology of belief to a simplistic IF-THEN-BELIEVE equation and expecting everyone else to go along with it.

    Walto and Newton are able to list in advance evidence that they believe would convince them of God’s existence.

    Good for them.

    I too can rattle off a long and dull list of things that might convince me of God’s existence – but until I encounter/witness these things I am not in a position to say whether they will actually cause me to believe.

    You might as well ask me “what will cause you to enjoy a song?”.

    I could waffle on about the elements I tend to enjoy in my music – a funky beat, some strings, a dark key change….etc.

    But until I actually hear the song there’s no point in asking me if I’m going to enjoy it. It could have all the elements I usually like in a tune and still be shite.

    Why is this beyond your capacity?

    Perhaps because your request is absurd?

  31. Woodbine: Walto and Newton are able to list in advance evidence that they believe would convince them of God’s existence.

    Good for them.

    I too can rattle off a long and dull list of things that might convince me of God’s existence – but until I encounter/witness these things I am not in a position to say whether they will actually cause me to believe.

    I’ve backpedaled on this a bit because I agree with your psychological point. But I think you could also “forwardpedal.” That is, I’m guessing you could list events that are LIKELY to convince you even if you can’t be entirely sure. Take your flying bearded, Bible-spouting, sinner burning thingie. Now suppose that, after using sufficient time and resources to study the matter, the consensus of every scientific community you trust pronounces, “Yep–we’re convinced. It’s God!” and sets forth in great detail the methodologies and results of all the tests they (publicly) performed. Wouldn’t you in that case, be LIKELY to agree?

  32. Kantian Naturalist: I can see the point of making a distinction here, but I don’t understand why FMM insists that only the latter is the position of the Real Skeptic.

    Only yesterday FMM declared that if somebody is unable to conceive an experiment to test whether an entity is omnipotent then they can no longer count themselves as a skeptic.

    In a tragic slice of irony it soon became apparent that FMM had no idea how to test omnipotence, either.

  33. Kantian Naturalist: Apparently, for FMM, there’s all the difference in the world between

    “It’s possible that there exists some evidence E that would cause me to believe p, although I have no idea what E would be”

    and

    “I know that I would believe p if given evidence E, and I know exactly what E would have to be in order to persuade me that p”

    I can see the point of making a distinction here, but I don’t understand why FMM insists that only the latter is the position of the Real Skeptic.

    There are just too many issues of verification to stick to one script of what would convince a person, in my view. So it seems to me that the more responsible skeptic view is to “wait and see” what happens to indicate that a god exists, if such events ever do unfold.

    Seeing DNA spelling out “Jesus is Lord” in English, or maybe Hebrew (after being translated from codons, of course),* in sequences with no apparent function (also apparently not added by humans), would certainly make me sit up and take notice. But all that I really know from that (at least in all likelihood) is that some being wants very badly to say “Jesus is Lord.” Maybe aliens, Loki, Satan, or something of which I have never conceived. Even in religion it’s often said that one must watch out for deceivers, and I hardly think skeptics should do less.

    Once you have something extraordinary confirmed, then you have to figure out what it means. We have no track record for how to go about it. Clearly “Jesus is Lord” being written in DNA could indicate exactly what it says (although interpreting that is still an issue, but on a different level), but could it be a cosmic prank, or deception by unknowns? It’s hard to say, especially when it is just hypothetical.

    Wood and FMM both seem not to have much conception of what it takes to verify matters, which is hardly as simple as they suppose. The very complexity of situations often is important to coming to a strong conclusion one way or the other, and it may very well be that “Jesus is Lord” would be in DNA to proclaim that “Jesus is Lord,” but it would take other information to be quite sure that Jesus or some other Godhead was responsible for proclaiming that as truth. Or the context might point toward some other “supernatural” being, alien genetic engineering (gee, what will humans do with such an extraordinary message in DNA?), or to the unknown and unimagined.

    We often don’t know what’s going to happen with quite mundane matters, like Trump being elected (or was it aliens?) and how that will affect society and finance. It’s much harder to know how we’re going to understand some magic message in DNA, galaxy arrangements, or whatever other spectacle we can imagine being quite beyond current expectations.

    Glen Davidson

    *What about other languages? Well, the thing is that I wouldn’t want to open up such possibilities to fitting whatever obscure language one might in order to get the message you’d like. Maybe we could include “major languages” or the like, but some dead South Pacific language (or maybe someday alien languages) used to get what you want from DNA seems a bridge too far.

  35. walto: Now suppose that, after using sufficient time and resources to study the matter, the consensus of every scientific community you trust pronounces, “Yep–we’re convinced. It’s God!” and sets forth in great detail the methodologies and results of all the tests they (publicly) performed. Wouldn’t you in that case, be LIKELY to agree?

    Yes, but isn’t that sort of like asking if one would be convinced if the apparent supernatural event is convincing? Yes, or at least one would like to think so.

    The problem is that it’s not so clear what evidence in context would actually be convincing to science, to us.

    Glen Davidson

  36. For me it’s pretty simple: if Trump, every one of his potential cabinet picks, and everyone who voted for Trump were all suddenly rendered mute and they could no longer operate any electronic devices (or some similar group-specific mass effect), I would know with absolute certainty that God existed. Barring that…meh…

  37. walto: Now suppose that, after using sufficient time and resources to study the matter, the consensus of every scientific community you trust pronounces, “Yep–we’re convinced. It’s God!” and sets forth in great detail the methodologies and results of all the tests they (publicly) performed. Wouldn’t you in that case, be LIKELY to agree?

    There’s little doubt that if I was born say 200 years ago I’d believe in God, not from any rational inquiry but simply by growing up in and absorbing the noetic environment.

    As it turned out I grew up in this era. And while it’s a bit unsettling to admit it to oneself the main reason I’m an atheist is because I grew up in a secular household, went to a secular school and had secular friends.

    But what if during my lifetime the scientific community were to reach a positive consensus on the existence of God? Is it likely I’d be carried along with them?

    Can I think on that? (It’s a great question)

  40. Woodbine: Only yesterday FMM declared that if somebody is unable to conceive an experiment to test whether an entity is omnipotent then they can no longer count themselves as a skeptic.

    no I said you should be able to conceive of an experment that would convince you a an entity is omnipotent.

    Please don’t misrepresent me.

    You can’t prove anything in this world but you can falsify a lot

    peace

  41. Patrick: Doesn’t your holy book say something about bearing false witness? A Real Christian ™ might refrain from such behavior.

    did you even watch the video? If you did you would understand

    peace

  43. Woodbine: No you’re not – you’re reducing the psychology of belief to a simplistic IF-THEN-BELIEVE equation and expecting everyone else to go along with it.

    That is not at all what I’m doing. I’m simply trying to establish if you open minded or if you are like Fred in the video.

    I think the case for Friedan skepticism has been pretty convincingly made By the way.

    Kantian Naturalist: Apparently, for FMM, there’s all the difference in the world between

    “It’s possible that there exists some evidence E that would cause me to believe p, although I have no idea what E would be”

    and

    “I know that I would believe p if given evidence E, and I know exactly what E would have to be in order to persuade me that p”

    Not exactly, there is no need to spell out E exactly only to give a rough idea that there is some actual E that would convince you that you are wrong

    Cromwell said it best

    quote:
    “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
    end quote:

    If there is no conceivable evidence that would convince you are wrong how can you “think” that you may be mistaken in any real tangible way.

    You might as well be saying say

    “I might be wrong then again I might be Napoleon Bonaparte anything is possible”

    peace

  44. walto: Hahahah

    I don’t see what is so funny? Woodbine has once again affirmed what Ive been saying all along. In fact he even is arguing that his response is the proper one.

    It’s pretty clear that Woodbine can’t conceive of any evidence that would convince him that God exists, He just does not think that that is a bad thing

    peace

  45. Woodbine: But what if during my lifetime the scientific community were to reach a positive consensus on the existence of God? Is it likely I’d be carried along with them?

    Can I think on that? (It’s a great question)

    I for one will be anxiously waiting your response. If the answer is yes then I will be the first to welcome you into the true skeptic club at lest about this one thing

    Whether you are skeptical of the scientific consensus is another matter.

    peace

  46. fifthmonarchyman: That is not at all what I’m doing. I’m simply trying to establish if you open minded or if you are like Fred in the video.

    Have you considered that your criteria for what qualifies as a ‘skeptic’ is built on faulty premises?

    According to you being a true skeptic (or open minded) involves casting a prediction on one’s future state of mind. I maintain that this is a mistake because our beliefs are not, as much as we might want them to be, under our control. Therefore any argument with the form “If x and y are true I will believe z” falls at the first hurdle.

    Imagine one day Shermer declares (quite sincerely) that if he ever sees his name written in the stars he will believe. Fast-forward a week and there it is – SHERMER – emblazened across the firmament. Shermer is confused, staggered, terrified….and yet he finds he still doesn’t believe.

    Is Shermer no longer a skeptic?

    Or was demanding that Shermer declare in advance the conditions that would change his mind a fallacious criterion for establishing one’s skeptical chops?

  47. Woodbine: According to you being a true skeptic (or open minded) involves casting a prediction on one’s future state of mind.

    not at all, It’s about your present state of mind. What would convince you right now.

    Woodbine: I maintain that this is a mistake because our beliefs are not, as much as we might want them to be, under our control.

    I completely agree.
    Remember I’m a Calvinist and a presuppositionalist.

    It’s not about controlling our beliefs but about whether our minds are open to the possibility that we can be wrong.

    I can’t control whether I believe that Trump will build that wall. I doubt he will. I’m skeptical. If I saw heavy construction on the border it would convince me I was wrong.

    On the other hand if I explained away any construction I might see on the border as building houses for immigrants I would be in denial.

    Get it,

    peace

  48. fifthmonarchyman: I can’t control whether I believe that Trump will build that wall. I doubt he will. I’m skeptical. If I saw heavy construction on the border it would convince me I was wrong.

    Taking a position on whether a human who we know to exist will do something he promised is a different species of analogy from trying to determine the existence of a supreme being.

    Like yourself I think a wall being built would be the ideal proof that I was wrong. And from your example a couple of days back I’m sure that the usual symptoms and expert diagnoses would convince me I had cancer.

    But I can only say this with confidence because I’m already familiar with presidents, promises, walls, pain, cancer and doctors. I have no experience whatsoever with a being who lives outside space and time and is infinite in all aspects. Therefore I can only imagine what would convince me of his existence.

    There is no fact in the world that cannot be explained by positing an infinitely powerful being, and there’s no way to determine whether said being really is infinitely powerful, wise, loving etc (if there is I’ve yet to hear it).

    This is not a failure of skepticism – it’s a lesson in how utterly vacuous the idea of God as an explanation really is.

  49. fifthmonarchyman: no I said you should be able to conceive of an experment that would convince you a an entity is omnipotent.

    I cant think of any experiment that would convince me of an entity’s ominpotence. Great power, certainly; make me soil my pants, definitely; omnipotence, nope.

    Not because I’m closed-minded or un-skeptical (or un-regenerate) but because I do not believe such an experiment could be devised.

    Can you conceive of such an experiment?

  50. George Burns and John Denver did a bit on the question of proof. In fact, the Hollywood of the last century did dozens of takes on the problem of faith and proof.

    I am just a simple minded person, incapable of deep thoughts, but they all looked to me like William James’ leap of faith.

    The idea being that belief enables achievements that are beyond the reach of doubters. This strikes me as psychology and sociology rather than theology, but I am too simple to understand theology.

Leave a Reply