From: martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas)
Subject: No such thing as evidence (was Nailing Christianity...)
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:54:15 GMT

OK, so I'm addicted to alt.atheism.. :)  But hell, this is MUCH
more important than working...  As a result of some mail I received,
some personal thoughts have been brought to a head, and I would
appreciate some feedback on them...

norman@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk writes:
>martin@cs.curtin.edu.au (Martin Dougiamas) writes:
>>Robert Knowles <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
>>>Debunking religion does not disprove the existence of god.  We really do
>>>not have to disprove the existence of god.  We simply do not accept the
>>>existence of god until that existence is proven.
>
>>Instinctively I agree with this, but we need to ask ourselves 'What would
>>constitute proof?' in this case.  What *would* prove to you (or me)
>>that a god existed?  This has worried me recently, because I can't think
>>of a single objective proof.
>
>>The problem is that all our perceptions and thoughts are such a hopeless
>>mishmash of reason, emotions and biology that we can never be sure
>>just what is *really* going on.  Or rather, it is just because we are
>>aware of the mishmash that we can't be sure what is really going on.
>
>>Religious persons don't have these worries and I must say I envy them.
>
> I wondered about "what would I accept as experimental proof" too.  I
> extended it to include evidence of any supernatural entity - not just gods.

Well, supernatural could just be defined as anything you haven't
any reasonable experimental evidence for yet.. ;)  But yes, sure.

> A problem is that a supernatural entity may decide to hide when you carry
> out your experiment.  So to make life simpler, assume the supernatural
> entity is co-operative.  The question is then, how would a supernatural
> entity convince you that it was supernatural?
> 
> One way I thought of it was like this.  If the universe were being
> simulated in a computer, then the programmer would be supernatural.  The
> programmer would have defined "nature" in this world, and would not be
> subject to its laws.  He/she could poke bits of memory, or change the laws
> from day to day.
> 
> For example, suppose addition became non-commutative, so that when you
> counted your change twice you got two answers.  That would be hard to
> explain, no?  (The fact that addition is commutative belongs to our
> constructed world of mathematics, ie it is a mathematical truth, not a
> physical one.  But when you count your change, I think you are doing maths,
> not physics.  You are saying for each coin what its numerical vaule is, and
> operating mathematically on these values.)

Even if we did notice addition had changed from yesterday, then how
are we to be sure our memories of yesterday are not false?

Surely if the change you describe was only within our "constructed
world of mathematics" then it is change to something that exists
only within our brains... And even this is something we can not
trust as evidence... minds can be manipulated using a myriad of 
techniques and may be subject to all kinds of forces we are not 
aware of.  The point is there is no way for us to distinguish
between what we perceive as reality and 'real reality' (if there is
one...) and thus the whole atheist standpoint of "absence of belief
in god until I get evidence" is totally moot, since there IS no
possibility of true evidence.

ANYTIME you accept ANYTHING as evidence you are showing some degree
of faith. 

I suppose the only totally convincing proof would be if something
were to actually meddle with your mind and MAKE you believe, totally
bypassing logic and the whole general mishmash.  Of course this
is what some religious people have always claimed.

But it still couldn't be a "proof" of a god in a logical sense,
simply because rationality (ie proof) has been bypassed completely,
and so you wouldn't be able to convince anyone else.  Again, this
is the problem religious people have.

I think I have resigned from being a atheist, as such.  I can see
the whole concept of proof is very limited (yes, I realise I've
being trying to prove this concept... ingrained habits, dontcha know :)  ).

Thus I'm stuck either believing everything or trying not to believe
in anything at all.

It strikes me that all this may be Existentialism.  I haven't 
read much philosophy so I wouldn't know.  I'm sure this sort of
philosophy has been discussed many times before... if anyone
has any references to such they could throw my way, I'd 
be appreciative.  I believe I might be passing through what
I've heard referred to as an Existential Crisis, and I could
do with some help...

> That was one line of thought.  The other line is that the church has
> experience of miracles, where laws are suspended for some purpose.  I've
> not been able to find out how the Vatican decides whether a particular
> event is a miracle, but I'm sure it would be interesting.

Oh, that's easy.  They just ask God.   :)

> PS I can't post to alt.atheism.  Feel free to post any/all of this there.

OK. I'm free!  I'm free!      "No, you're not, you're twenty-free"
Martin
-- 
,----------------------------------------------------------------.      _ .
| That's not what motivates me            Martin Dougiamas.      |   _r| Ll\
| Enough of this petty stuff for me    martin@cs.curtin.edu.au   |  |  |    \
| Not interested in pedantry             martin@dialix.oz.au     -->\  |_   /
| I'm interested in apathy            Perth, Western Australia   |   ~~  `-'
`=== This Is Serious, Mum ======================================='        v
--
Your eyes are weary from staring at the screen.  Your eyelids feel very heavy.
You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your
eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.  When you awake you will follow up this post and enthusiastically
agree with it.  Then you will send all your money to martin@cs.curtin.edu.au.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism