From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Evidence
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:51:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

George Belle misinterprets me, and concludes that I assert all atheists must
conclude that there is no God:

>> Thus George, if one cannot present strong evidence for their god (ie: 
>> evidence which is verifiable and is not an indefensible example of special 
>> pleading), then it is indeed *logically* valid to dismiss the existence of 
>> that god. 
> 
>	Wrong! I am as much an atheist as anyone, however I am willing to admit
> 	that there may be a "creator". 

George, I said that is logically valid, in the face of all absence of
evidence, for an atheist to conclude that God does not exist.  Or to say it
differently, it is logically valid in the sense that the logic was validly
applied to the facts at hand.  I did not say that it is logically necessary
for an atheist to conclude that God does not exist.  I personally have
experienced no more evidence than you for the existence of God, and yet I
would consider myself an agnostic rather than atheist (ie: my level of
confidence on the issue is probably less than yours). 

Remember that logic works depending on its inputs (ie: GIGO); it can only work
on the facts it has at hand.  Thus one can (though not must) use logic to to
analyse the facts at hand and get an answer.  That logical conclusion though
may be wrong if the the "facts" it used were incorrect.  If there is truly, on
all levels no evidence that a thing exists (ie: there is no evidence which is
unavailable to us) then it is logically valid to conclude that thing to be
nonexistent.  The problem with religion is that the "evidence" is usually some
form of "special pleading".  Now an argument which is subject to special
pleading is not necessarily false, but it is considered valid to dismiss a
case of special pleading, if there no strong perceptible mitigating
difference.  At present no particular religion has been able to make claims
measurably superior to all other religions, and yet most would have you accept
their claims, while rejecting the similar claims of the other religions.  This
is definitely special pleading.  The other type of evidence which is usually
claimed to exist is evidence which will not be presented until after you
completely commit your faith (which tends to be self fulfilling regardless of
the religion), or until you die (both of which are again forms of special
pleading).  Thus there does not seem to be any "evidence" which cannot be
validly dismissed when talking about religion (by "valid", I mean "to have
reasonable justification").

I am trying to get across the idea that "logically valid" and "wrong" are not
mutually exclusive (unless we are talking about math).  Aristotle would
consider the situation I am speaking of to be a "fallacy of matter" (ie:
getting your facts wrong), rather than a "fallacy of discourse" (ie: a logical
fallacy).  For instance, it would be perfectly valid for a 18th century
scientist to reject the existence of quarks, as there was no evidence for
quarks in any way available to him (the conclusion would have been wrong, but
would have been logically justified with the facts he had available).  On the
other hand logic is one of the most successful tools we have. 

What I am trying to say is: it is perfectly valid to use logic to make a
decision with the facts we have present at this time (which is what some
atheist do).  It is also perfectly valid to postpone judgement, in the hope of
obtaining data that has been up till now, unavailable (which is what you and I
seem to do).  I do not criticize you for failing to logically conclude that
there is no god (that would be a strange criticism as I also am guilty of it),
rather I am merely criticizing your statement:

	    "No intelligent atheist claims that there is no god"

By the way I would also point out that the statement on which you base your
nonbelief (rather than disbelief) in God: 

	One must prove a positive assertion.

is a logical corollary of the statement:

	A complete lack of evidence is evidence against.

On another slightly different subject, Gregg Skinner asks of me:

>> On the other hand it IS *logically* valid to conclude that lack of evidence
>> for the existence of a thing, is evidence against the existence of that 
>> thing. 
> 
> I am not familiar with any logic in which this is valid.  That is not
> to say this is incorrect; I just am unaware of adherents to this
> school of thought other than Mr. Butler.  Perhaps he would be willing
> to point us to some scholarly works on the matter.

Gregg, please get any really good reference on logic and rhetoric (even
Encyclopedia Britannica has a discussion of the classic fallacies).  I believe
you will find a discussion of rhetorical fallacies in Alfred Tarsky's
"Introduction to Logic and the Methodology of Deductive Sciences" but its been
a while.  As you are at a university though, I would also suggest you look at
the book that your university uses for their basic logic and rhetoric courses. 
Look at the comprehensive list of fallacies known as "Aristotle's Sophistical
Refutation" (You will find that this basic and comprehensive list of fallacies
to be well over two thousand years old).  Also look at a detailed discussion
of the fallacy "Argumentum ad Ignorantum", as that should answer your
question. 

You will note, that recognition of this list of fallacies is pretty much
omnipresent in our society (debates, courts of law, mathematics, science,
etc), and that the assuming that a positive assertion is false until proved
true is also used ubiquitously.  For instance in court cases: a charge of
guilt is considered false until it is proved true (and I doubt that you would
wish to change that).  An even more explicit example is mathematics, where all
unproven theorems are treated as being false, until proved true. The same is
true of Sciences; a theory for which there is no evidence is treated as false
and gains no acceptance.  The tool "False until shown true" is used all over
the place and I find it a bit odd that you should be so singularly surprised
and ignorant of its existence.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize that as a 
    thinker it is his duty to follow his intellect to whatever 
    conclusion it may lead.
				John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins