"And my problem is, fundamentally, that "well, you can't prove it's NOT" is by no means any kind of reason to act on the basis of a proposition, especially when proving nonexistence is literally impossible, by definition. The fact that it's taken to be so in the specific case of gods is, fundamentally, a failure in thinking so vast as to be damn near indescribable."
And I didn't say it was. I just said that's the difference between agnostic (I.E. there's no evidence in support of but there's also no evidence against) vs atheist (there's no evidence in support of therefore it must not exist.)
You seem to work from a base assumption that if there is no evidence for something it must not exist even if there's no evidence against it. But sometimes lack of evidence for something just means that no one has looked for it before, or that the right tests haven't been done. Of course, if people have been looking for evidence for something for a long time and it's still not been found, then odds are pretty good that it's not there. That's a stronger argument for the lack of a god if you wanted to make it. I'd have no problem with you saying "people have been looking for evidence of this for a long time and haven't found it, therefor I don't think it exists" vs the blanket statement that anything that there isn't evidence for must not exist.
Of course, I'm getting back to combining science with philosophy, and this is why that doesn't work. Because even if someone were to make a claim based on a religious perspective, if the test failed, they could find ways to explain it away. If the test succeeded, the "other side" could find ways to explain it away. (And there have been some interesting efforts to study whether prayer really is effective. I seem to recall there being some evidence that prayer did speed healing, although I don't remember the details of the study. But it could very well be a placebo effect - I don't recall if the people being prayed for knew they were being prayed for or not. But it's an example where even making a testable hypothesis (If there is a god, then prayers to that god to heal someone should result in faster healing time) could be explained away. If the study showed no significant difference, non-believers would say it was evidence there was no god, believers would say there was lack of faith on the part of the patients or something. If the study showed significant differences, believers would say it was evidence of god, non-believers would say it was a placebo effect, or positive social reinforcement, or some such.
I'm a firm proponent of science being science and philosophy being philosophy. I don't think that just because philosophical questions aren't testable makes them useless questions to consider. I do think it's interesting when some questions that had been philosophical are able to be brought into the realm of science when technology advances to the point of being able to look at the next level of detail. For instance, questions of consciousness have definitely crossed from the philosophical to the scientific. But I don't think that every philosophical question will reach that point.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 03:02 am (UTC)And I didn't say it was. I just said that's the difference between agnostic (I.E. there's no evidence in support of but there's also no evidence against) vs atheist (there's no evidence in support of therefore it must not exist.)
You seem to work from a base assumption that if there is no evidence for something it must not exist even if there's no evidence against it. But sometimes lack of evidence for something just means that no one has looked for it before, or that the right tests haven't been done. Of course, if people have been looking for evidence for something for a long time and it's still not been found, then odds are pretty good that it's not there. That's a stronger argument for the lack of a god if you wanted to make it. I'd have no problem with you saying "people have been looking for evidence of this for a long time and haven't found it, therefor I don't think it exists" vs the blanket statement that anything that there isn't evidence for must not exist.
Of course, I'm getting back to combining science with philosophy, and this is why that doesn't work. Because even if someone were to make a claim based on a religious perspective, if the test failed, they could find ways to explain it away. If the test succeeded, the "other side" could find ways to explain it away. (And there have been some interesting efforts to study whether prayer really is effective. I seem to recall there being some evidence that prayer did speed healing, although I don't remember the details of the study. But it could very well be a placebo effect - I don't recall if the people being prayed for knew they were being prayed for or not. But it's an example where even making a testable hypothesis (If there is a god, then prayers to that god to heal someone should result in faster healing time) could be explained away. If the study showed no significant difference, non-believers would say it was evidence there was no god, believers would say there was lack of faith on the part of the patients or something. If the study showed significant differences, believers would say it was evidence of god, non-believers would say it was a placebo effect, or positive social reinforcement, or some such.
I'm a firm proponent of science being science and philosophy being philosophy. I don't think that just because philosophical questions aren't testable makes them useless questions to consider. I do think it's interesting when some questions that had been philosophical are able to be brought into the realm of science when technology advances to the point of being able to look at the next level of detail. For instance, questions of consciousness have definitely crossed from the philosophical to the scientific. But I don't think that every philosophical question will reach that point.