For future reference, phrasings like “should you not, as an X, do Y?” will frequently be interpreted by native English speakers as implying that Xes should do Y. (In this case, that rationalists should accept “God created the universe” as an explanation.)
My point was more about why and how [the Big Bang] happened, not if.
Ah. Thanks for clarifying that.
For my own part, I have no clear idea why or how the Big Bang happened. Neither am I very clear about why and how stars were formed, or why and how the state borders of Louisiana were established, or why and how the Connecticut state constitution was ratified.
So I suppose you could say that I have a “worldview” that has no explanation for these things. It’s hard to know for sure, since I’m not quite sure what “my worldview” refers to. I certainly believe that there is an explanation for how and why those things happened (several explanations, actually), if that clarifies anything.
But in none of these cases does my ignorance of why and how that thing happened strike me as particularly compelling evidence for anything particularly significant, and it certainly doesn’t seem to be evidence that God created the universe, or the stars, or the state of Louisiana, or the Connecticut state constitution.
I don’t mean that performing the tests will not give visible results, I mean that performing the test leaves you with difficulty in reporting your findings.
Now you’ve just confused me. Can you describe more concretely the test you have in mind, and what I should expect to experience after performing that test if God created the universe, and what I should expect to experience if the universe came into being some other way?
most religions make a pretty big prediction of and event that will definitely happen to all of us.
Again, I’m unsure what you mean. Can you be clearer about what event most religions predict that will definitely happen, and how that prediction serves as evidence about how and why the universe came into being?
The test I was referring to was dying—if the afterlife is as a religion says it is, then it can probably be accepted that the rest of the religion’s doctrine is correct—at least the essentials. Or if not, you could ask the Supreme Being what IS correct.
Conversely, if there is no afterlife, then if can be accepted that the religion is incorrect.
Obviously this does not apply to all religions, but server the purpose here, I believe.
Sure, I agree: if, upon my death, I find myself in an afterlife consistent with religion X’s teachings about the afterlife, and/or able to ask questions of some entity who claims to be the Supreme Being, I should update my beliefs about the likelihood of such an afterlife/Being.
But of course, we’re pretty sure this won’t happen. Indeed, let’s consider two alternatives:
Afterlife exists, but God set it up so that you can’t report back because… uh… I’ll get back to you?
Afterlife doesn’t exist, which is why you can’t report back (there’s nothing to report back from).
In more explicitly Bayesian terms, which is larger:
P(~report|afterlife) or P(~report|~afterlife)?
Pretty clearly the latter, right? So the lack of reports is therefore evidence against an afterlife. (Maybe not conclusive evidence, but evidence.)
Theflyingfrogfish means “everybody’s going to die;” and he doesn’t view that as the end of each person’s ability to sense and evaluate. I would recommend to TFFF, on the subject of what religion claims regarding provability, to read this Yudkowsky post.
OK, fair enough.
For future reference, phrasings like “should you not, as an X, do Y?” will frequently be interpreted by native English speakers as implying that Xes should do Y. (In this case, that rationalists should accept “God created the universe” as an explanation.)
Ah. Thanks for clarifying that.
For my own part, I have no clear idea why or how the Big Bang happened. Neither am I very clear about why and how stars were formed, or why and how the state borders of Louisiana were established, or why and how the Connecticut state constitution was ratified.
So I suppose you could say that I have a “worldview” that has no explanation for these things. It’s hard to know for sure, since I’m not quite sure what “my worldview” refers to. I certainly believe that there is an explanation for how and why those things happened (several explanations, actually), if that clarifies anything.
But in none of these cases does my ignorance of why and how that thing happened strike me as particularly compelling evidence for anything particularly significant, and it certainly doesn’t seem to be evidence that God created the universe, or the stars, or the state of Louisiana, or the Connecticut state constitution.
Now you’ve just confused me. Can you describe more concretely the test you have in mind, and what I should expect to experience after performing that test if God created the universe, and what I should expect to experience if the universe came into being some other way?
Again, I’m unsure what you mean. Can you be clearer about what event most religions predict that will definitely happen, and how that prediction serves as evidence about how and why the universe came into being?
The test I was referring to was dying—if the afterlife is as a religion says it is, then it can probably be accepted that the rest of the religion’s doctrine is correct—at least the essentials. Or if not, you could ask the Supreme Being what IS correct.
Conversely, if there is no afterlife, then if can be accepted that the religion is incorrect.
Obviously this does not apply to all religions, but server the purpose here, I believe.
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.
Sure, I agree: if, upon my death, I find myself in an afterlife consistent with religion X’s teachings about the afterlife, and/or able to ask questions of some entity who claims to be the Supreme Being, I should update my beliefs about the likelihood of such an afterlife/Being.
But of course, we’re pretty sure this won’t happen. Indeed, let’s consider two alternatives:
Afterlife exists, but God set it up so that you can’t report back because… uh… I’ll get back to you?
Afterlife doesn’t exist, which is why you can’t report back (there’s nothing to report back from).
In more explicitly Bayesian terms, which is larger: P(~report|afterlife) or P(~report|~afterlife)? Pretty clearly the latter, right? So the lack of reports is therefore evidence against an afterlife. (Maybe not conclusive evidence, but evidence.)
Agreed that this is evidence against an afterlife.
Theflyingfrogfish means “everybody’s going to die;” and he doesn’t view that as the end of each person’s ability to sense and evaluate. I would recommend to TFFF, on the subject of what religion claims regarding provability, to read this Yudkowsky post.