I must say I resent the allegation that all readers of this blog must be atheist—is it not permitted for me to be interested in rationality just because I am one of these ‘obviously deluded’ religious types.
And should you not, as a rationalist, accept the explanation that God created the universe, which is an explanation that fits the facts, and makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed), than accept that something happened (the Big Bang) which your worldview has no explanation for?
And why is God creating the universe paradoxical? Outside of this universe, with the physical laws that require causality, why does He require a beginning?
is it not permitted for me to be interested in rationality just because I am one of these ‘obviously deluded’ religious types.
Of course it’s permitted. We couldn’t prevent your interest in rationality even if we wanted to, which we don’t. Nor could we prevent your reading the blog, even if we wanted to, which we don’t.
Whether theism is permitted is an uninteresting question.
I must say I resent the allegation that all readers of this blog must be atheist
I can understand why you would resent that.
Do you find it any more objectionable than your implication that we should all be theists—that is, that we should “accept the explanation that God created the universe”?
should you not, as a rationalist, accept the explanation that [etc.]
I agree that “as a rationalist” I should, in general, prefer to accept an explanation for an event that fits the facts rather than accept the existence of an event that has no explanation.
I don’t agree with your implication that I am actually forced to choose between “God created the universe” and “the Big Bang happened” (indeed, I know many theists who believe both), nor with your assertion that my “worldview” has no explanation for the Big Bang happening.
makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed),
Observing the results really ought to count for a lot… that’s not something to casually throw away.
I mean, think about it: if I propose a theory that predicts certain results to certain tests, and you go out and perform those tests and you don’t observe those results, what conclusion would you come to about that theory?
Do you find it any more objectionable than your implication that we should all be theists—that is, that we should “accept the explanation that God created the universe”?
I did not intend to imply anything of the sort—as I said above, I was more challenging the general attitude and querying my understanding of rationality than attempting to directly challenge anyone’s theism or lack of same.
I don’t agree with your implication that I am actually forced to choose between “God created the universe” and “the Big Bang happened” (indeed, I know many theists who believe both), nor with your assertion that my “worldview” has no explanation for the Big Bang happening.
I agree completely—I also believe that the Big Bang occurred. My point was more about why and how it happened, not if.
I mean, think about it: if I propose a theory that predicts certain results to certain tests, and you go out and perform those tests and you don’t observe those results, what conclusion would you come to about that theory?
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. Large chunks of the Bible is about predicting either the future or what was the future when it was written. And most religions make a pretty big prediction of and event that will definitely happen to all of us.
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.
And should you not, as a rationalist, accept the explanation that God created the universe, which is an explanation that fits the facts, and makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed), than accept that something happened (the Big Bang) which your worldview has no explanation for?
No. Basically not. You lost all your righteous momentum here and started sounding nutty.
1) The universe itself is also not something that exists inside the universe. Hence, if you think causality doesn’t apply to your god, you shouldn’t think causality applies to the universe as a whole either.
(thus, your characterization of the big bang as a “theory that has no explanation of the facts” vs. theism as a theory which does explain the facts, is wrong)
2) You claim your religion predicts the future (“makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed)”). Presumably you refer to various afterlife-scenarios. The big bang theory predicts far more things which can be observed. Hence there is no reason for your theory (theism) to rise to the status of a hypothesis in the first place. Read Privileging the Hypothesis
3) The notion of “causality” in physics has changed a lot since the days of classical physics. It no longer corresponds to the naive notion of causality that might naively seem to require an uncaused cause.
An interesting point—all my learning in astrophysics up to now had basically said that ‘we don’t know how it can have happened given that the laws of entropy and thermodynamics seem to prevent it’. Although the universe as a whole seems to obey at least some physical laws, e.g. expanding at a constant rate, etc. I happen to believe that there is a scientific explanation to be found for the Big Bang—I doubt that God will have created a perfectly cohesive set of scientific laws until you get to a certain point where he says ‘Oh, all right, you got me there’. My point was more directed at what seems to be ‘any scientific theory, even if it can’t explain all the evidence, is better than any other theory, even if it can’t be disproved’.
The Big Bang and theism are in no way mutually exclusive—I myself have no problem that the Big Bang is probably the origin of the universe. As for predictions, there are various prophecies and suchlike in the old testament that were fulfilled in the new testament—though you will probably call doubt onto the reliability of these sources.
My understanding of quantum physics is not as good as I wish it were—what is different?
The Big Bang and theism are in no way mutually exclusive
I agree
As for predictions, there are various prophecies and suchlike in the old testament
that were fulfilled in the new testament—though you will probably call doubt onto
the reliability of these sources.
Those are predictions about the past, not about the future. If you accept this as evidence, have you studied a large amount of other religions to see if they make similar claims? And if you had lived before the events of the new testament, would you have been able to distinguish the (supposedly true) “old testament” predictions from the (false) predictions made by thousands of other prophets of thousands other religions/sects?
My understanding of quantum physics is not as good as I wish it were—what is
different?
First, radio-active decay is uncaused (or so it appears, to the extent that quantum mechanics is correct). But that is not the point I was trying to make.
In (special) relativity, “causality” basically refers to “all observers agree about light cones” or “if information flows from space-time point a to space-time point b, all observers will agree that the information went from a to b instead of vice versa”, or simply “No one observes information travelling to the past”. No notion of “all effects have a cause” or anything like that.
In mechanics, say the description of a billiard table, (naive) causality seems obvious: why did this ball change its direction? Because it was hit by another ball! all the way back to a player hitting the first ball. But, there is the principle of least action (the related principle of least time is better known but describes light only). The principle of least action says that the trajectory of all those billiard balls is a stationary point of some functional (the action). In this view, there is nothing special about ball collisions. We ask “why did the ball change its direction (when it was hit by another ball or by the wall)” but we might as well ask “why didn’t the ball change its direction (when it wasn’t hit by another ball or by the wall)” and the first question is no more natural than the second. And the answer to both questions is the same: “because that path is a stationary point of the action functional”.
The naive notion of causality requires a known “natural” or “unperturbed” state. Only if we already know Newton’s first law, then we can be surprised at the ball’s change of direction. How would we apply this to the beginning of the universe? If you don’t already know the natural unperturbed behaviour of the universe at/very near the big bang, how can you justify being surprised that it behaved the way it behaved? So surprised, in fact, that you have to imagine one or more high-complexity extra-universal entity(s) kick-starting the process?
So using scientific notions of causality near the big bang will get you nowhere—they don’t say anything about causes, just about the order of certain events.
“Those are predictions about the past, not about the future.”
So Deuteronomy 28 predicted the scattering of the Jews to all nations of the earth. Then in Deuteronomy 30 it is predicted that they will be gathered from all nations of the earth (as well as if they are driven to the outmost parts of heaven they will be gathered from their). The Jews during the Roman times were scattered (documented fact) to all nations and have more recently begun to be gathered again to their ancient lands. (see Isaiah 11:11 as well).
That was a prediction that up until this last century was about the future, and a prediction that the century before was considered impossible. Take from it what you will.
I must say I resent the allegation that all readers of this blog must be atheist—is it not permitted for me to be interested in rationality just because I am one of these ‘obviously deluded’ religious types.
And should you not, as a rationalist, accept the explanation that God created the universe, which is an explanation that fits the facts, and makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed), than accept that something happened (the Big Bang) which your worldview has no explanation for?
And why is God creating the universe paradoxical? Outside of this universe, with the physical laws that require causality, why does He require a beginning?
Of course it’s permitted. We couldn’t prevent your interest in rationality even if we wanted to, which we don’t. Nor could we prevent your reading the blog, even if we wanted to, which we don’t.
Whether theism is permitted is an uninteresting question.
I can understand why you would resent that.
Do you find it any more objectionable than your implication that we should all be theists—that is, that we should “accept the explanation that God created the universe”?
I agree that “as a rationalist” I should, in general, prefer to accept an explanation for an event that fits the facts rather than accept the existence of an event that has no explanation.
I don’t agree with your implication that I am actually forced to choose between “God created the universe” and “the Big Bang happened” (indeed, I know many theists who believe both), nor with your assertion that my “worldview” has no explanation for the Big Bang happening.
Observing the results really ought to count for a lot… that’s not something to casually throw away.
I mean, think about it: if I propose a theory that predicts certain results to certain tests, and you go out and perform those tests and you don’t observe those results, what conclusion would you come to about that theory?
I did not intend to imply anything of the sort—as I said above, I was more challenging the general attitude and querying my understanding of rationality than attempting to directly challenge anyone’s theism or lack of same.
I agree completely—I also believe that the Big Bang occurred. My point was more about why and how it happened, not if.
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. Large chunks of the Bible is about predicting either the future or what was the future when it was written. And most religions make a pretty big prediction of and event that will definitely happen to all of us.
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.
No. Basically not. You lost all your righteous momentum here and started sounding nutty.
Care to explain my error? I’m somewhat new to this—why is a theory that has no explanation of the facts be placed above that which does?
1) The universe itself is also not something that exists inside the universe. Hence, if you think causality doesn’t apply to your god, you shouldn’t think causality applies to the universe as a whole either. (thus, your characterization of the big bang as a “theory that has no explanation of the facts” vs. theism as a theory which does explain the facts, is wrong)
2) You claim your religion predicts the future (“makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed)”). Presumably you refer to various afterlife-scenarios. The big bang theory predicts far more things which can be observed. Hence there is no reason for your theory (theism) to rise to the status of a hypothesis in the first place. Read Privileging the Hypothesis
3) The notion of “causality” in physics has changed a lot since the days of classical physics. It no longer corresponds to the naive notion of causality that might naively seem to require an uncaused cause.
An interesting point—all my learning in astrophysics up to now had basically said that ‘we don’t know how it can have happened given that the laws of entropy and thermodynamics seem to prevent it’. Although the universe as a whole seems to obey at least some physical laws, e.g. expanding at a constant rate, etc. I happen to believe that there is a scientific explanation to be found for the Big Bang—I doubt that God will have created a perfectly cohesive set of scientific laws until you get to a certain point where he says ‘Oh, all right, you got me there’. My point was more directed at what seems to be ‘any scientific theory, even if it can’t explain all the evidence, is better than any other theory, even if it can’t be disproved’.
The Big Bang and theism are in no way mutually exclusive—I myself have no problem that the Big Bang is probably the origin of the universe. As for predictions, there are various prophecies and suchlike in the old testament that were fulfilled in the new testament—though you will probably call doubt onto the reliability of these sources.
My understanding of quantum physics is not as good as I wish it were—what is different?
I agree
Those are predictions about the past, not about the future. If you accept this as evidence, have you studied a large amount of other religions to see if they make similar claims? And if you had lived before the events of the new testament, would you have been able to distinguish the (supposedly true) “old testament” predictions from the (false) predictions made by thousands of other prophets of thousands other religions/sects?
First, radio-active decay is uncaused (or so it appears, to the extent that quantum mechanics is correct). But that is not the point I was trying to make.
In (special) relativity, “causality” basically refers to “all observers agree about light cones” or “if information flows from space-time point a to space-time point b, all observers will agree that the information went from a to b instead of vice versa”, or simply “No one observes information travelling to the past”. No notion of “all effects have a cause” or anything like that.
In mechanics, say the description of a billiard table, (naive) causality seems obvious: why did this ball change its direction? Because it was hit by another ball! all the way back to a player hitting the first ball. But, there is the principle of least action (the related principle of least time is better known but describes light only). The principle of least action says that the trajectory of all those billiard balls is a stationary point of some functional (the action). In this view, there is nothing special about ball collisions. We ask “why did the ball change its direction (when it was hit by another ball or by the wall)” but we might as well ask “why didn’t the ball change its direction (when it wasn’t hit by another ball or by the wall)” and the first question is no more natural than the second. And the answer to both questions is the same: “because that path is a stationary point of the action functional”.
The naive notion of causality requires a known “natural” or “unperturbed” state. Only if we already know Newton’s first law, then we can be surprised at the ball’s change of direction. How would we apply this to the beginning of the universe? If you don’t already know the natural unperturbed behaviour of the universe at/very near the big bang, how can you justify being surprised that it behaved the way it behaved? So surprised, in fact, that you have to imagine one or more high-complexity extra-universal entity(s) kick-starting the process?
So using scientific notions of causality near the big bang will get you nowhere—they don’t say anything about causes, just about the order of certain events.
“Those are predictions about the past, not about the future.”
So Deuteronomy 28 predicted the scattering of the Jews to all nations of the earth. Then in Deuteronomy 30 it is predicted that they will be gathered from all nations of the earth (as well as if they are driven to the outmost parts of heaven they will be gathered from their). The Jews during the Roman times were scattered (documented fact) to all nations and have more recently begun to be gathered again to their ancient lands. (see Isaiah 11:11 as well).
That was a prediction that up until this last century was about the future, and a prediction that the century before was considered impossible. Take from it what you will.
People who knew about that prophecy deliberately helped to fulfill it. That destroys much of its value as evidence.