Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:56:04 EST
From:         "Tony @ Brownvm" <EL406045@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU>
Subject:      God and Dowsing
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

Warning: long and rambling post, but few flames.

Posted on 7 Nov 1992 at 09:32:24 by Graham Toal

[quoting me]
>: There's no fence to fall off.  Skeptics don't need to be aggressive - it's
>: just a matter of sitting quietly and waiting for either extreme to prove
>: its view.  Of course it helps to bring a book or your knitting - the wait
>: will probably be a long one.
>
>If you can't make a resounding positive judgement on loony issues like
>dowsing, tarot reading, or God in High Heaven, then you're just as bad
>as they are.

You misunderstand my view - or indeed perhaps I haven't presented it
well.  Let me quote from the objectives of CSICOP: "[the committee] does
not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but
rather examines tham objectively and carefully."  This is what I do - in
theory.  Obviously I haven't the resources to do it all myself, so I
rely on the researches of others.  On the issues you mention above, I
have certainly reached resounding <practical> conclusions, and I live
my life as though all had been disproved.  But if God makes himself known
one fine day, and it turns out he really does exist, it won't invalidate
my reasoning.  Even something as evidently loony as dowsing could turn
out to have something to it.  Don't get me wrong - there is not a shred
of good evidence for it, and tons against.  And I'm not suggesting, as
someone - Voltaire ? did that one should pray just in case God does
turn out to exist.

Let's look at dowsing and God a bit closer:


Dowsing

Evidence for: stories from various cultures over the centuries,
current claims by satisfied well drillers etc.

Evidence against: claims cannot be repeated under controlled conditions,
other simpler explanations suffice in all cases, claimants have been
caught cheating while being tested, Randi's offering of significant
prize money for successful demonstration brought no winners, etc.

Conclusion: dowsing is almost certainly nonsense.

Practical outcome: I do not pay money to dowsers if I want a well
drilled or a pipeline located.  I discourage others from wasting
their money similarly.


God (specifically the Judeo-Christian sort here)

Evidence for: historical and current testimonials of personal revelation,
historical sacred writings supposedly dictated by God, historical
evidence of behaviour of many people implying their belief in God, etc.

Evidence against: impossibility of verification of personal revelation,
evidence of multiple authorship, editing, and tampering with the sacred
writings, rampant self contradictions in both sacred writings and
past and current professed beliefs, simpler explanations suffice for
most reported events ("miracles" etc.), lack of evidence to support
historicity of sacred writings (including conflicts with well
supported outside sources), failure of countless predictions made
on the basis of belief in God, *untestability of theory of God*, etc. etc.

Conclusion: the whole idea is so bizarre as to be incredible.

Practical outcome: live life according to moral codes (golden rule, etc.)
that do not involve supposed God.

What makes Dowsing and God different ?  Chiefly the lack *by definition*
of testability of a belief in God.  Dowsers are generally happy to
make predictions and have them tested - it's just that the tests
fail.  (Then of course they often get grumpy and try to change the
rules after the fact.)

Of the above two, I'll take dowsing.  Not that I think there's the
slightest chance of it's being true, but *if the evidence came in*
I'd accept it without a big upset.  God is another story.  I can no
more imagine believing in God than I can in Santa Claus.  Indeed I
stopped believing in both at about the same time for similar reasons.
I cannot conceive of rational evidence that could undo the overwhelming
negative evidence accumulated so far.  A personal revelation is about
the only thing that would do it, and of course I believe that's
unlikely :-).  (All you Christians should probably pray for me to
have one.)

>              It's PC in the extreme to fail to come to a conclusion
>about something because it's a view held by an oppressed minority, when
>the facts (or rather total lack of them) are obvious.

True, but a complete non sequitur.

>                                                       You can't wait
>for one side to 'prove its view' when the view of that side is so defined
>as to be unprovable.  The extreme of this is the complete solipsist argument
>which no-one can logically disprove.  Still, I bet you hold an opinion
>on that one, no?  (Or *do* you think the world revolves around you?)

I suggested bringing a book or knitting precisely because it'll be
a long wait.  My knitting consists of getting on with my life - I'm
not about to devote it to active or passive explorations of other
peoples' bizarre beliefs.  Every now and then I find myself motivated
to spend some time exploring one or another of them - whether pointing
out self contradictions of the bible to a Jehovah's Witness at the
door, or helping the local skeptics group with research on "channeling"
or some such.  Ultimately the interesting and productive question is *why*
are there so many believers in whacko things out there ?

>It's weak minded pseudo-intellectualism to sit on the fence.

Sitting on the fence was Ruth's phrase, not mine.  I'm not fence sitting.

Skepticism is (IMHO) the ideal going in position (*no* inappropriate
remarks needed here - cf Perot and pulling out).  In the absense of
evidence and/or knowledge, assume the middle position: neither believe
nor disbelieve.  As evidence arrives, choose a position closer to
belief or disbelief.  If the issue is not of import or interest,
then go and do something else.

Tony H.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU